The Keris in Early Javanese Literature

sukuh · 3rd July 2008, 04:37 PM

...

Rick · 3rd July 2008, 05:15 PM

Here's why Sukuh :

http://fmatalk.com/showthread.php?t=4395

sukuh · 3rd July 2008, 07:00 PM

I got the message...

PenangsangII · 4th July 2008, 06:33 AM

I think it's just too bad that the moderators decided to put Mr Baganing in the sandbox

What the fma ppl did to him is quite unfair. I believe he has at least the right to be heard.

Yes, most of the things he said in his blog are "quite controversial" but at least he is offering a new perspective, as far as keris or kris is concerned. Actually I enjoy him for having been here......

Rick · 4th July 2008, 01:54 PM

Thank you for your opinion Penangsang .

fearn · 4th July 2008, 04:36 PM

Hi All,

I'm delurking for a second, and while I'm nothing but a newbie, I'd like to make sure I'm following the thread here, and at least refine my ignorance, if nothing else.

I'm assuming that we use the low-level term "keris" because it's the common term that all of us can use as equals, without having to know the rank of those who read our posts?

Treading on thin ice, am I correct that the kalis/keris "thing" is due to our (mistaken) assumption that an l to r transition (kalis to keris) makes linguistic sense as a Sanskrit to Javanese borrowing. According to Mr. Maisey, this is NOT the case, because keris is based on the Javanese root "-iris," and is an indigenous Javanese term. I'd thought that kalis is a Sanskrit term for sword, and I'm certainly not a Sanskrit scholar, or even a linguist.

Finally, I'd point out that while English doesn't have too much in the way of rank-based formalisms (at least current English), we do have segregation based on usage, which is even stranger in its own way. After all, all civilizations have to deal with social hierarchies, but we tend to ignore that. English peculiarites? Consider legalese, which is a very peculiar dialect, as are the various academic lexicons. We use different terms when we're discussing contracts (pursuant, anyone?) or research (wherein data are plural, whereas data is singular in popular usage) means that English is quite odd. I pity the scholars who try to decipher our current documents, once English becomes a dead language.

F

Marcokeris · 4th July 2008, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PenangsangII

I think it's just too bad that the moderators decided to put Mr Baganing in the sandbox

What the fma ppl did to him is quite unfair. I believe he has at least the right to be heard.

Yes, most of the things he said in his blog are "quite controversial" but at least he is offering a new perspective, as far as keris or kris is concerned. Actually I enjoy him for having been here......

I agree

Rick · 5th July 2008, 02:39 AM

As much as I am loath to discuss my actions as a Moderator of this board I will offer this to our Members who may use English as a second or third , nay even fourth or fifth language who have objected to my actions .

To a native English speaker the nuances and tone of this ex member's posts were often insulting to our members and dismissive of reality and long established facts and honest hard research backed up by citation .

In return for our questions we were offered blanket statements with absolutely nothing to back them up except the poster's assertion that they were true . All this coming from an anonymous entity who offered absolutely nothing palpable as evidence .

Every time any member tried to pin this poster down with facts the subject became somehow miraculously changed with yet more unsubstantiated claims and going in yet another direction .

Gentlemen, I have moderated for well over a dozen years on this site and I (and other members here) can smell a Troll from quite some distance .

Now, let's get back on topic please .

David · 5th July 2008, 06:30 AM

Sorry Rick, but just to add a bit to your thoughts, there was and certainly will not ever be any problem with any forum member posting controversial theories or new perspectives here on the forum. The problem here was in the tone and delivery and the constant refusal by Baganing to answer simple and pertinent questions in line with her theories. You do not gain any credibility simply by repeating unsubstantiated theories over and over and over again. Repetition alone does not make them true. Remember Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)?

3rd July 2008, 05:15 PM	#2
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,339	Troll Here's why Sukuh : http://fmatalk.com/showthread.php?t=4395

3rd July 2008, 04:37 PM	#1
sukuh Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 15	...

3rd July 2008, 07:00 PM	#3
sukuh Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 15	I got the message...

4th July 2008, 06:33 AM	#4
PenangsangII Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 401	I think it's just too bad that the moderators decided to put Mr Baganing in the sandbox What the fma ppl did to him is quite unfair. I believe he has at least the right to be heard. Yes, most of the things he said in his blog are "quite controversial" but at least he is offering a new perspective, as far as keris or kris is concerned. Actually I enjoy him for having been here......

4th July 2008, 01:54 PM	#5
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,339	Thank you for your opinion Penangsang .

4th July 2008, 04:36 PM	#6
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Hi All, I'm delurking for a second, and while I'm nothing but a newbie, I'd like to make sure I'm following the thread here, and at least refine my ignorance, if nothing else. I'm assuming that we use the low-level term "keris" because it's the common term that all of us can use as equals, without having to know the rank of those who read our posts? Treading on thin ice, am I correct that the kalis/keris "thing" is due to our (mistaken) assumption that an l to r transition (kalis to keris) makes linguistic sense as a Sanskrit to Javanese borrowing. According to Mr. Maisey, this is NOT the case, because keris is based on the Javanese root "-iris," and is an indigenous Javanese term. I'd thought that kalis is a Sanskrit term for sword, and I'm certainly not a Sanskrit scholar, or even a linguist. Finally, I'd point out that while English doesn't have too much in the way of rank-based formalisms (at least current English), we do have segregation based on usage, which is even stranger in its own way. After all, all civilizations have to deal with social hierarchies, but we tend to ignore that. English peculiarites? Consider legalese, which is a very peculiar dialect, as are the various academic lexicons. We use different terms when we're discussing contracts (pursuant, anyone?) or research (wherein data are plural, whereas data is singular in popular usage) means that English is quite odd. I pity the scholars who try to decipher our current documents, once English becomes a dead language. F

5th July 2008, 02:39 AM	#8
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,339	As much as I am loath to discuss my actions as a Moderator of this board I will offer this to our Members who may use English as a second or third , nay even fourth or fifth language who have objected to my actions . To a native English speaker the nuances and tone of this ex member's posts were often insulting to our members and dismissive of reality and long established facts and honest hard research backed up by citation . In return for our questions we were offered blanket statements with absolutely nothing to back them up except the poster's assertion that they were true . All this coming from an anonymous entity who offered absolutely nothing palpable as evidence . Every time any member tried to pin this poster down with facts the subject became somehow miraculously changed with yet more unsubstantiated claims and going in yet another direction . Gentlemen, I have moderated for well over a dozen years on this site and I (and other members here) can smell a Troll from quite some distance . Now, let's get back on topic please .

5th July 2008, 06:30 AM	#9
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,218	Sorry Rick, but just to add a bit to your thoughts, there was and certainly will not ever be any problem with any forum member posting controversial theories or new perspectives here on the forum. The problem here was in the tone and delivery and the constant refusal by Baganing to answer simple and pertinent questions in line with her theories. You do not gain any credibility simply by repeating unsubstantiated theories over and over and over again. Repetition alone does not make them true. Remember Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)?