Khyber, pesh, choora, or kard?

estcrh · 29th November 2017, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Lighten up, Eric:-)))

I will when you stop portraying your personal opinions as proven facts. What some villager a hundred plus years ago may or may not have called a particular weapon or armor has nothing to do with what we now call them.

Knowing how and when these current names came into use is historically important but lets not go backwards in time when describing them now in our time.

ariel · 30th November 2017, 01:14 AM

Well, if you want to call analysis of actual written sources and phonetic pronounciations of the word by native speakers "personal opinion", I would gently disagree, but will not, in any way, shape or form, try to prevent you from using the term you hold so dear to you.

The only thing I would like to add, is that my original post on the origin of "karud" was read and approved by Robert Elgood.

From now on, please take your fight to him.

Although I am afraid you are in different weight categories.

All the best.

And, by the way, do you still call the thingie some villager in Iran called "shamshir" three or five hundreds years ago, - "scimitar"? After all, we still see this word on many Internet auctions. I hope you are consistent in your beliefs.

Kubur · 30th November 2017, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Although I am afraid you are in different weight categories.

It's a joke.
It's funny that the moderator didn't block this comment.
Eric, I think you should consult the forum but to participate.
It's a waste of time.
It's probably what I'll do when i read this kind of comment.
The forum is full of "I know everything"...
The same who praise Wikipedia search done by some members...
funny...
I hope that my comment will be published as it's a fact and not disgraceful like previous comment.

estcrh · 30th November 2017, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kubur

It's a joke.
It's funny that the moderator didn't block this comment.
Eric, I think you should consult the forum but to participate.
It's a waste of time.
It's probably what I'll do when i read this kind of comment.
The forum is full of "I know everything"...
The same who praise Wikipedia search done by some members...
funny...
I hope that my comment will be published as it's a fact and not disgraceful like previous comment.

Oh well....whats next? Maybe someone will decide that khyber knives are just large straight bladed pesh-khabs and insist that we stop using khyber knifes...humm.

Jim McDougall · 30th November 2017, 05:14 PM

Really guys, I think the absence of mod intervention is mostly patient abstinence hoping you guys who seem at odds can maturely resolve these contentions.
I saw this and could only think of that 60s song, "The Name Game" with all the banana fana stuff, which pretty much characterizes these silly arguments about terms.
Actually we have gone nearly 5 or 6 months without the 'karud' theme.

Actually in my opinion much of the researched and supported perspectives on these terms used for the spectrum of weapons in these regions has been interesting and helpful, and much of it by those of you here at odds.
The reality is that these conundrums in terminology are resultant of the high volatility and dynamic intertribal flux in these areas, factor in cultural diffusion and influences. There are actually a number of 'right' answers, with the dreaded axiom, 'it depends' ,at the fore.

In ethnographic circumstances all of you are well aware of the kinds of variations and hybrids which result in these weapons and the same influences coupled with the semantics, colloquial terms, transliterations and other linguistic dilemmas render accurate classification pretty chaotic.

I think a brief visit to our search feature and archived threads would give a pretty good overview of the material already discussed, and help those seriously interested in arriving at their own conclusions . I know I use it often, pretty much faithfully actually, and never cease learning from the contributions you guys and others have entered.

As for Wikipedia, it is but one online source, and serves as a benchmark to pursue further research either online or in published references. It is not intended as a primary source, but initial research and overview reference.
Researchers use it often in that manner, as I know I do. Actually there are far more using it than will admit it, due to the unfortunate derision often unwarranted criticism often directed toward its use.

As most authors know, nothing written and published is the final word or conclusive answer to most questions, and most encourage further study and evidence to be presented. It is about fact finding and supported rebuttal, as well as courteous exchange of ideas whether opposed or in support.

I'm just sayin'

Jim

Ian · 30th November 2017, 07:24 PM

Thanks Jim.

Patience with the exchanges here is running thin. Let's move on folks!

Ian.

shayde78 · 30th November 2017, 07:53 PM

Sigh...I intentionally didn't use the one term to avoid triggering this debate that I have seen by searching through prior threads.

That said, from some of the pictures and feedback provided, I will conclude that my piece is a hybrid of forms from the Afghan region that probably dates to the mid-1800s.

Is that fair? Thanks to all who contributed, even if it did get a bit spirited.

30th November 2017, 07:24 PM	#6
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,360	Moderator response Thanks Jim. Patience with the exchanges here is running thin. Let's move on folks! Ian.

30th November 2017, 01:14 AM	#2
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Well, if you want to call analysis of actual written sources and phonetic pronounciations of the word by native speakers "personal opinion", I would gently disagree, but will not, in any way, shape or form, try to prevent you from using the term you hold so dear to you. The only thing I would like to add, is that my original post on the origin of "karud" was read and approved by Robert Elgood. From now on, please take your fight to him. Although I am afraid you are in different weight categories. All the best. And, by the way, do you still call the thingie some villager in Iran called "shamshir" three or five hundreds years ago, - "scimitar"? After all, we still see this word on many Internet auctions. I hope you are consistent in your beliefs.

30th November 2017, 05:14 PM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,189	Really guys, I think the absence of mod intervention is mostly patient abstinence hoping you guys who seem at odds can maturely resolve these contentions. I saw this and could only think of that 60s song, "The Name Game" with all the banana fana stuff, which pretty much characterizes these silly arguments about terms. Actually we have gone nearly 5 or 6 months without the 'karud' theme. Actually in my opinion much of the researched and supported perspectives on these terms used for the spectrum of weapons in these regions has been interesting and helpful, and much of it by those of you here at odds. The reality is that these conundrums in terminology are resultant of the high volatility and dynamic intertribal flux in these areas, factor in cultural diffusion and influences. There are actually a number of 'right' answers, with the dreaded axiom, 'it depends' ,at the fore. In ethnographic circumstances all of you are well aware of the kinds of variations and hybrids which result in these weapons and the same influences coupled with the semantics, colloquial terms, transliterations and other linguistic dilemmas render accurate classification pretty chaotic. I think a brief visit to our search feature and archived threads would give a pretty good overview of the material already discussed, and help those seriously interested in arriving at their own conclusions . I know I use it often, pretty much faithfully actually, and never cease learning from the contributions you guys and others have entered. As for Wikipedia, it is but one online source, and serves as a benchmark to pursue further research either online or in published references. It is not intended as a primary source, but initial research and overview reference. Researchers use it often in that manner, as I know I do. Actually there are far more using it than will admit it, due to the unfortunate derision often unwarranted criticism often directed toward its use. As most authors know, nothing written and published is the final word or conclusive answer to most questions, and most encourage further study and evidence to be presented. It is about fact finding and supported rebuttal, as well as courteous exchange of ideas whether opposed or in support. I'm just sayin' Jim

30th November 2017, 07:53 PM	#7
shayde78 Member Join Date: Mar 2017 Posts: 445	Sigh...I intentionally didn't use the one term to avoid triggering this debate that I have seen by searching through prior threads. That said, from some of the pictures and feedback provided, I will conclude that my piece is a hybrid of forms from the Afghan region that probably dates to the mid-1800s. Is that fair? Thanks to all who contributed, even if it did get a bit spirited.