Karud: the weapon that did not exist:-)

[fernando]

Assuming that there are collectors situated between those interested in aesthetics and those in ethnohistory is a fair concession; but why not also conceding that a mix of both also exist ?. Appreciating the elegance or mechanics of an object and, feeling the urge to search for its origin and people that made it ... and used it, are qualities not necessarily dissociable. Nothwidstanding from such point onwards there still is a vast territory for academics to exploit.

When i started gathering collectibles i had this impulse to buy a book that would contemplate every single piece i acquired. Maybe i felt i should build my own library ... and that would be a system.

And when it comes to terminology i would take it that, when people around me calls things in a westernized mode and i remind them their genuine name (when i know it), i don't think i do it because they are being destructive; it is i, who expects to be constructive .

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by ariel

I would put it a bit differently: there are collectors who are interested in the physicality of objects ( materials, wealth of decorations, harmony and beauty etc.) The recent book from Al-Sabah collection is the closest example I can quickly recall.

And there are collectors who are interested in history and ethnography.

And there are others in between.

Personally, I am not into beautiful weapons without a "dark past", kisses of time, hints of mutual penetration of cultures and, yes, people behind them. I cannot imagine ignoring people who made and owned them and the circumstances they went through. I probably got more books on weapons and countries they came from than the swords:-)

For me, disrespecting the "villagers" who made their often primitive weapons and ignoring the names they used to call their weapons in favor of some European one, no matter how convenient it is, is objectionable and counterproductive.

Yes, we do use a lot of European-invented monikers, but this is simply because of our ignorance. If possible, we should strive for the truth.

Kind of like a Rumpelstiltskin principle: know the name, and you get ownership of the object.

Hello Ariel,

My guess is that most of the collectors are somwhere inbetween. Well... at least I hope I am...

As with regards to your statement about using "European-invented monikers" because of our ignorance... I beg to differ.

While in some cases, it might be the truth, in some other it may be very far from it.

Take ifor example the KARUD. Is this an European-invented moniker?! I don't think so since even you in your original posting demonstrated that in fact it is a phonetical transliteration of the word KARD, which in turn is exactly how the natives used to call this type of knife (as Dmitry probably demonstrated in his paper).

Moreover, since the locals didn't have any specific name for this very specific blade, and they simply called it Kard (using "correct" transliteration)/Karud (using phonetic transliteration)/knife, I don't see how it can be disrespectful to them using exactly their name for their weapon. And in order to distinguish it from another one of their weapons, we use the phonetic transliterated term "Karud" for it as opposed to the literary transliterated term "Kard" for the other type of weapon.

This way, not only that we acknowledge and use the names given by the original makers/users of these knives, but we succeed in distinguishing between the two distinct variations of knife, where the original makers/users of the knives didn't distinguish (probably because they didn't feel the need to distinguish).

Last but not least, I beg to differ with the very idea of the title of this thread:

"Karud, the weapon that did not exist."

Not only that the "KARUD" exists and existed, but it was also CALLED exactly like this by its original makers/owners, exactly the same way the "KARD" exists and was WRITTEN like this by its original makers/owners!

Your whole argumet in the original posting is not about whether the "KARUD" existed or not, but about what is the "correct" way to transliterate a word: using the literal transliteration or the phonetic transliteration?!

You could rewrite your initial posting replacing "Karud" with "Kard" and attempting to make the point that the term "kard" does not exist and is merely a wrong ad-literam transliteration of the word "karud" as it is heard by our ears.

At least that's how I see things...

[fernando]

Originally Posted by A.alnakkas

... but isn't the line between a collector and a hoarder is a very fine line?

A question of personal perspective, perhaps. Although semanthics may not oblige, in my whereabouts we don't take the risk of such confusion, as we make a practical safe distinction between the two. We call collector (colector) any person or device that joins things in general, taxes, pipes, you name it, and we call 'collectionner' (coleccionador) a person or entity that puts up collections of selective things for appreciation and study; resulting that we are not general stuff collectors but antique arms collectionners. No line of any thickness between both ... but an empty space.
On the other hand one can't help to think of the hoarder term without a pejorative connotation; something like (quoting a crude english speaking source, font sizes included):

Hoarder:
(Adj) A word that describes anyone that feels the need to find, collect, keep, pack ANY and EVERYTHING because they do not know how to throw things away. A nicely put word than Pack Rat.

[Bob A]

The difficulty in actually ascertaining the vocabulary, context and usage of "villagers" renders most discussion more or less moot, in the absence of records or actual persons who embody the reality of a past time.

Linguistic research is limited to either written records by early Europeans, who may or may not have actually encountered contemporary examples of then-current usage, or scouring "native" records, with attendant problems of transliteration and focus - those who had the skill and opportunity to write of the subject were likely viewing it from a socio-cultural position far from that of the originators of the objects in question.

Ultimately a problem may arise when the usage of scholars branches away from that used in commerce and informal collection.

I fully embrace the search for truth, while reaining aware that it may only be approached asymptotically. The past is perforce a closed book, which we may approach cautiously and carefully, or embrace with commercial vigor, with all the inaccuracy and hype that entails.

[Jim McDougall]

A few points,
ON THE TITLE OF THE THREAD:
The title of the thread is perhaps misaligned. Rather then 'karud' the knife that did not exist.........better .
"Karud, the term misapplied to variation of pesh kabz through phonetic misinterpretation by Europeans thus becoming a vernacular word used by collectors for this particular form" The form DOES exist, its the term which is in question. .....what to call it.

ON THE TERM HOARDER:
The pejorative term 'hoarder' is entirely inappropriate to describe a collector, as they are typically systematic in their acquisition of the items they collect regardless of what forces drive their selections.

ON THE NATURE OF COLLECTORS:
Factors such as aesthetics, variations and forms, developmental sequences and many other individually favored features or reasons drive collectors. Hoarding is a resultant circumstance of either unconscious or unreasoned acquisition of things in volume, continued perpetually without relief or organization and often symptomatic of possible psychological issues.

I think the differences between collecting and hoarding, and the choice of use of these terms is fairly obvious.

ON THE APPLICATION OF TERMS IN CLASSIFICATION:
As we have seen through so many years of discussions here, there are so many instances of words in various cultures and languages which apply to 'edged weapons' rather indiscriminately. The analogies are many, but in so many cases, the terms for 'sword' for example often refer to 'any' sword regardless of particulars. In India, tulwar could mean the Indo-Persian we all know so well all the way to a British cavalry sabre.

The entire thesis here has to do with but one instance of a simple term for knife, kard, being misheard phonetically by non speakers of the language and misapplied to what is basically a straight bladed pesh kabz. The term kard is broadly applied, much in the same manner the term tulwar is.

Yet to us, as collectors or scholars in MANY if not MOST cases think of tulwar as the familiar disc hilt in what the west has labeled 'Indo-Persian' form.
While this appellation has existed since the 19th century (earlier perhaps in degree), the world of arms scholarship and collectors has somehow survived without dramatic reaction to the clear transcultural use of the term specific to that single form.

A similar schism as specious in nature has existed in not just ethnographic terminology on swords, but in European as well. When is a sword no longer a sword? when does a dagger become a dirk?
If a broadsword means double edged, and a single edged a backsword, why was the term broadsword used indiscriminately for both in the 18th c.

Why is a Khyber knife called that when it is as large as a sword? Why do they call it a salwar yataghan when it is not a yataghan at all ?

Then the real beauty! Is a sword termed by the form of its blade?or like sosun patta, then classified further as Hindu or Muslim by the hilt form.
Yet swords are typically classified by hilt style, as many claim that since blades were widely traded, remounted etc. the character of the hilt is the determinate factor.
But as desperately as we have tried to regionalize the 'tulwar' hilts in India, we find that these forms were widely distributed through export from areas of production such as Rajasthan, not to mention the profound diffusion through conquest ethnically, colonially and constant flux with India's vast diversities bearing dramatic conflicts.

It seems the futility of trying to change or resolve the countless misnomers and conflicts in terminology which has become firmly emplaced in use, at this point should be powerfully apparent.

When we saw that the term 'katar' was misapplied inadvertently to the distinct dagger known linguistically in the regions of its use as 'jamadhar' (Pant, 1980) there was no strong reaction nor even the slightest effort to change the term. However, while use of the term katar remained in place to describe these daggers in common parlance, many responsible writers and scholars will FOOTNOTE the proper term originally used in India.

So it should be with KARUD, but it is to the benefit of all to be aware of the proper etymology of the term, so this valuable information is well worthy of footnote, but does not warrant an entire reapplication of classification.

ON OUR DISCUSSION HERE:
I think the most important thing we see in this remarkably dynamic discussion (or debate at points) is the impressive levels of knowledge and linguistic skills and reasoning displayed by all involved and participating here.
As always, I learn a great deal from these discussions, and wanted to say so, and thank everyone for their patience in carrying these out so constructively.

[fernando]

No need to thank, Jim. Patience is everyone's middle name ... and is provided on a Pro Bono basis .

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...

Why is a Khyber knife called that when it is as large as a sword? Why do they call it a salwar yataghan when it is not a yataghan at all ?
...

mine, like others i've seen, has a very slight yataghan-like recurve to the t-spine, if not the edge. they are made much like the karud knives, a.k.a. straight peshes, hence it's a knife, much like a german langemesser or grossemesser was a big knife, not a sword - because only officers and nobles could have swords, and only sword smiths could make swords for them, peasants had to make do with big knives made like knives by the lowly knife smiths. sumptuary laws, guilds, caste systems in action.

so, round and round we go, where we stop nobody knows....

[ariel]

Jim,
Some of your questions seem to have answers. Mostly , it is a matter of ethnic origin.
Dirk ( or dork, or durk) is considered to relate to Germanic word Dolch, whereas Dagger clearly stems from the Latin group : Dague of Old French or Italian Daga.

Different sosun patas were all "lily leaves", i.e. sharing similar blades, not handles. The Deccani form is a Sailaba; quite likely that swords from the same group but from different localities also had specific local names, but we might have forgotten them.

Salavar ( in "Salavar yataghan") is clearly an English transcription of Selaava ( see earlier in this discussion) and "yataghan" was just added by the Brits from a very familiar to them Ottoman short sword with recurved blade ( see post by Kronkew). And BTW, are Selaava and Sailaba related?

In linguistics ethnicity is destiny: Bichwa is Baku or Vinchu, khandjar is Chhurri or Chaku in different regions (examples taken from Elgood's glossary).


And I am not talking already about Indonesian islands:-)

[fernando]

Originally Posted by ariel

...whereas Dagger clearly stems from the Latin group : Dague of Old French or Italian Daga...

Maybe not so linear, if i may, Ariel.
Listen to what scholars think about this term:

- Some dictionaries say that the word "adaga" originates in hypothetical latin term "daca", which means "punhal". However this is once more an hypothetical word, which existence was never verified. Raphael Bluteau refers a possible Germanic origin (daguen) with contamintion to French (daque) towards the Italian (daga). Curiously the origin of the word may be similar to this proposal, only that the signification and the language of origin are other. Our word "adaga" must come from “ødi” [âdi], which means "adornament, embelishment", and “daku” [dake], which means killing, destroy, submit, ou de “dk” [dake], which is noble [8]. Therefore adaga comes from the expression “ødi dk” [âdidake] which will be noble's ornament, or from "addake", which will be killing adornamnent.

[8] - The form “dâku” is acadian, while the word "dk" is ugaritic. There also exist forms close from the old Hebraic. Possibly all were pronounced in a
close mode and would have similar signification.-

http://fernando-outroladodahistoria....fenicia-o.html


.

[Bob A]

I was stimulated by this thread to wonder why "Laz Bichaq", which seems to be a sword, or at least a bladed weapon of sword length, would be named "bichaq', which itself means, as best as I can determine, "knife" or "dagger".

Does this appellation arise from ethnographic sources, that is, a name applied by the original users? It seems sloppy usage to me, as knives and daggers as a term of common usage are generally shorter in length, seemingly topping out at about 12" in blade length.

But then there's the Khyber "knife", one of which in my possession has a 23" blade.

I'm just easily confused, I guess. Else I'd suspect that the natives lacked sufficient education to determine proper nomenclature of their tools.

[ariel]

Correct. I just chose the most direct and believable connections.
Also, "dagger" was associated with "daca", presumably a name for Dacian dagger, although all known Dacian daggers were crooked, and rightfully belong to the same group as "sica" ( sicarii used them), which likely stems from the Hebrew " sakin", knife.

Words mutate: Persian khanjar becomes Georgian khanjali, and from there Russian kinzhal. In Russian usage, any fighting double-edged short bladed weapon is kinzhal: thus, in Russian books one can see " kinzhal bichwa", " kinzhal kris", " kinzhal katar", and even "kinzhal kinzhal":-) etc. Some less picky authors apply it to single-edged implements as well: " kinzhal kukri", " kinzhal karud" etc.

Come to think of it, a large proportion of names for a short-bladed weapon in all languages is just a local moniker or a derivative of "knife".

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Apparently ~ Ugaritic had 28 consonantal phonemes (including two semivowels) and eight vowel phonemes (three short vowels and five long vowels): a ā i ī u ū ē ō. The phonemes ē and ō occur only as long vowels and are the result of monophthongization of the diphthongs ay and aw, respectively.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you Ariel for these additional insights into these linguistic challenges in trying to describe these many weapon forms. Languages of course have often almost indeterminate degree of dialects as well as vernacular and colloquial terms.
It seems almost reasonable that westerners (Europeans) in these various spheres would misconstrue or mispronounce and transliterate this maelstrom of terminological idiosyncrasies. It is almost tempting to think they may have simply reappointed terms known to them regarding other weapons in more of a colloquial sense, i.e. yataghan for the salawar (though the recurve instance in many is noted).

The term karud, though resultant of phonetic interpretation, still serves as a now well emplaced term in our glossary to indicate this particular form of pesh kabz.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by ariel

... Come to think of it, a large proportion of names for a shot-bladed weapon in all languages is just a local moniker or a derivative of "knife".

Makes all sense; as short blades were more like basic utensiles rather than weapons, villagers had no name to call them but generally knives. It was the wealthy that spent time naming the different swords.
Trying to establish a paralelism, i have learnt that, when a nation is invaded, the successive conquerors keep on changing the spoken language in the cities, courts and palaces, while the villagers keep speaking their old language; resulting that even nowadays there are in the local language hundreds of common words that have such remote origin.
The Iberian Peninsula was invaded by Romans, Barbarians and Arabs but portuguese (for one) still has remnants of its original language, one similar to the old Hebraic, to the Ugaritic, to the Acadian.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Fernando, your observation is very interesting - and logic as well.
I too think that many names could be local, or spelled the way the Europeans heard it.
Europeans from different countries would likely spell the same weapon in different ways, which may be part of some of our problem.

[ariel]

Bob A:

As a rule, Ottoman " kilich" swords ( sabers) were relatively long, with blades > 70-80 cm. Anything shorter than that was conventionally called "bichaq", knife.

In the largest published collections from Askeri Muze and Zagreb the greatest majority of yataghan blades are between 45-55 cm, and this is likely true for most examples in our collections. Often, Turkish sources refer to "yatagan bicagi" ( Kubur, sorry for simplified spelling) both to standard yataghans as well as to the knives of Yataghan form.

There was a thing called Varsak, referring to a "short saber of Crimean origin", but we have no material examples clearly identified as such. Carrying both varsak and bichaq in peaceful times was forbidden, and this is vaguely reminiscent of a story how yataghans became popular ( I.e. they were not formally swords).

Quite some time ago I posted a pic of the so-called bauernwehr, a variant of grossmesser: its blade in form and dimensions was indistinguishable from the Afghani "Khyber knife". It looked like a big knife to Brits, so it became a "knife".

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Fernando, your observation is very interesting - and logic as well.
I too think that many names could be local, or spelled the way the Europeans heard it.
Europeans from different countries would likely spell the same weapon in different ways, which may be part of some of our problem.

That is a good point Jens, Europeans would transliterate the words phonetically, and miss the salient tones and diacritics pertinent.Depending on what language these individuals spoke, their own grammar rules would apply adding that variation to the transliteration.
Compound confusion!

Bob, you are not alone in being confused, as clearly seen in our attempts at clarifying these linguistic dilemmas. As Ibrahiim has well illustrated, many languages in additional to alphabet differences often have radically varied grammatical protocols and pronunciation conventions.

Actually, it is not as much any particular educational deficiency in native groups improperly describing things, including weapons, as it is the human propensity to seek brevity or colloquial words in common parlance.
In casual conversation or communication the use of slang, nicknames or catchy names often take the place of formal.

We could carry this ad hoc course in linguistics as applied to ethnographica ad infinitum in analogies and analysis of grammatical peculiarities. However, the entire purpose of the paper on the karud in the O.P. was to reveal further evidence on the etymology of the term for this dagger form.
It is well understood that this is far from a singular case of transliterated or transposed terms applied to a weapon form, and not necessarily done in the proper sense, or misapplied entirely.

These cases seem simply a litany of 'Hobson-Jobson' type instances where many perhaps improperly applied terms have become colloquial as collectors terms for various ethnographic weapons. As these terms have become firmly emplaced in our literature, it is at this point counter productive and unwarranted to consider revising them, and as has been suggested numerous times, better to simply include this data as historical footnotes in properly cited material in future reference.

[fernando]

Up to now i realized that, not only Europeans but all those who have travelled around the world, had to catch the sound and eventually write about the name of things they met, using their own alphabet; one may imagine arabic speakers, such great travellers, having to convert into their script whatever objects they heard being named by locals. One even has to consider how such names, once being perpetuated by strangers, were result of the perception of simple people or of intelectuals; it is perhaps pertinent to admit that, the name of a sword perceived by illiterate navigator crewmen might be distinct from that picked by one such Ibn Batuta.
Also we may consider that, the earliest the etymon is, the more corrupted it may have been.
And then we have the optional (different) name peoples use to address the same thing, depending on the area of the country where they reside; all of them good, as consuetudinary.
On the other hand and introspecting into the Western side of things, if we pick the consensual 'knife' term, when consulting the Oxford dictionary, the description includes a couple encrypted symbols, linked to Old english after Old teutonic but, for what is worth, it ends up assuming that, the root of the word is of uncertain etymology.
In any case the object called 'knife', as other, when used in other languages may not be a strict 'transfer' of the term to local composition, but one of different provenance.
Spaniards use 'cuchillo' and French use 'coucteau', both appearing to have a more traceable identification, with direct connection to latin 'culltellus'.
Whereas the term selected by Portuguese, 'faca', appears to have incognito parents. Latin 'falcula' being rejected, as well 'falx'; the arab "farkha" offers no plausibilty, as intrinsically appointing to a completely different direction. It is consensually a term certainly introduced by populars, admitedly pre-Roman, and of obscure origin.
Definitely, life of scholars/academics is not easy, having to deal with all these endless riddles; but there are so many living humans out there that, of those, many are that chose to struggle with such problematic tasks. Much easier for those that are pleased by understanding eachother with whatever means; and, in case spoken resources fail ... we can always resort to sign language .
All in all, discussing the nuances of terminology is not counter-productive nor unwarranted; it is imposing their revision that has no sense, instead.

[Jim McDougall]

Perfectly elaborated Fernando, and you have hit the chord pitch perfect. While the linguistics are fascinating, complexity notwithstanding, the point of all this reflects the suggestion placed in the paper of the original post.
This is that a term derived from developmental linguistic engineering, whether intentional or not in the course of evolution to describe a certain object etc. in present and known definition. should be removed.

It is rather like removal of a cornerstone from a structure because the component material is incongruent with the rest of the materials in place. Perhaps not a sufficient analogy and probably arguable if there are architects out there, but I think the point is clear.

We have lived with these misnomers and linguistic misteakes this long, so I agree, leave them in situ (Latin term, impressive yes?)

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...bleave them in situ (Latin term, impressive yes?) ...

Rather impressive, Jim; i guess a peritus linguae latinae wouldn't do it better .
Thank you for giving a hand to compose my previous meaningless catharsis.
And speaking of languages, in order to back myself up with some solid consistence after meddling in this thread with a couple unschooled 'filology' stray shots, i have just acquired this book which shows the significant number of words still used in our vocabulary, based in the original language of my neighborhood, spoken before the Romans stormed the place with their 'linguae'.


.

[kronckew]

Ceterum censeo, when hannibal was organising his army to cross the alps and invade italy to destroy rome, he had to defeat a lot of roman allied tribes in the iberian penninsula, he enlisted the aid of the tribes along the western coast who were famously bellicose and had resisted successfully the roman offers. they ultimately lost, but remain bellicose. and they make fine wines but for them, we all might be speaking french and drinking their rotgut grape juice.

[fernando]

I don't know if i catch your drift, Wayne but, i didn't hear you complaining about the whines they served you with the barnacles when you wandered around this spot .

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by fernando

I don't know if i catch your drift, Wayne but, i didn't hear you complaining about the whines they served you with the barnacles when you wandered around this spot .

seems to have lost a bit in translation.

was a bit of a obscure reference to the bravery of the section of iberia which became portugal, in resisting the initial spread of pax romanum and their lingua, and a poke in the ribs of the froggies while praising your wines, they are so proud of their wines, which to me are poor by comparison to those of portugal. (british wine is catching up and surpassing french, we still can't make a decent fortified wine yet here in the UK, that's OK tho, we import it from your neck of the woods. no doubt after the brexit we'll set up the old traditional smuggling routes again.)

hmm, i wonder if sailors ate the barnacles they scraped off their hulls.... i recall eating some mussels near lisboa one night, quite nice they were too. my vegan wife, now ex, had her usual salad. she did drink and enjoy the wine in large quantities tho. i recall a vinho verde with fondness, made her frisky. we did eat a certain soup together a lot,AÇORDA ALENTEJANA , for the rest of you it's made with a big bunch of coriander, lots of garlic, bread and a poached egg on top (she did eat eggs. it remains a favourite of mine, i make it myself quite often, tho i do usually add some chicken breast as i use chicken stock (i didn't tell her y'all use chicken stock too - if she didn't know she wasn't bothered)... - it's getting close to dinner time and my mind drifts to food.).

[ariel]

During Napoleonic wars Brits could not import French or Spanish wines and switched to Portugese sources. Wines got oxidized during sea voyages, and alcohol had to be added to prevent fermentation. That's how port (from Oporto) became popular in Britain.
When we vacationed in the middle of nowhere in Portugal, in a small bed and breakfast place surrounded by mountaines and overlooking a lake. One day I spent 3 hours on the patio , eating ugly pears that tasted like ambrosia and writing a paper I procrastinated over for a year. Drank 2 bottles of local Port ( ~$3 per 750 ml bottle) and wrote away without any inhibitions. The paper was accepted without corrections.
Back home I tried to find the magic brew, but could not. My scientific productivity plummeted since.....

[kronckew]

you should have eaten more Açorda Alentejana, garlic is good for the memory. now, what were we talking about?

(i had some boiled vegetables, pork , a fried egg with a pork bone stock with oyster sauce gravy with about 4 cloves worth of chopped garlic, over pasta noodles for breakfast. it thins the blood and is good for all manner of ills - and i don't have to worry about smelling of garlic as i'm on my own.)

one of my neighbours commented to me recently 'was that wonderful smell from your end of the corridor yours? i love garlic'. i gave her a bunch of the dried garlic i used. sadly, other brits do not appreciate the aroma as much. a pox on them, i don't care.

[ariel]

Buddy, I eat garlic with my garlic!!!!!
Four cloves of garlic is for girls.

[kronckew]

i make up for it with extra bacon.

everything is better with bacon.

i eat bacon with my bacon.

beef stew tonite. i'll add more garlic to suppliment breakfast.

and some bacon.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by kronckew

... we did eat a certain soup together a lot, AÇORDA ALENTEJANA , for the rest of you it's made with a big bunch of coriander, lots of garlic, bread and a poached egg on top it remains a favourite of mine, i make it myself quite often, tho i do usually add some chicken breast ...

That´s the problem with Açorda the Alentejana way; too thin. You have to order them Migas, if you want something more substantial; whereas Açorda outside Alentejo goes with lots of stuff ... cod fish, shell fish, you name it; and again with a starry egg to mix with.

Originally Posted by ariel

... During Napoleonic wars Brits could not import French or Spanish wines and switched to Portugese sources. Wines got oxidized during sea voyages, and alcohol had to be added to prevent fermentation. That's how port (from Oporto) became popular in Britain...

Well ... not so late, according to reliable sources. Port whine started being fortified during the late XVII century, much before Napoleon was born, in fact to prevent it from deteriorating during long sea trips.
Later in the second half of XVIII century a pre-fermentation fortifying process, together with a few other practices, was set up to establish what Port whine is nowadays. Eventually only in the XIX century all producers were using such method.

Originally Posted by ariel

... One day I spent 3 hours on the patio , eating ugly pears that tasted like ambrosia and writing a paper I procrastinated over for a year. Drank 2 bottles of local Port ( ~$3 per 750 ml bottle) and wrote away without any inhibitions. The paper was accepted without corrections.
Back home I tried to find the magic brew, but could not. My scientific productivity plummeted since.....

Ah, ah, i know where to find that stuff. Actually within less than a month i will go up there and acquire the real thing; no label, no Institute proof mark, only the home made stuff. Not that i am needing to reinstall my productivity; only to get drunk with some class.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by kronckew

...sadly, other brits do not appreciate the aroma as much. a pox on them, i don't care...

And what diet do Brits fancy ... other than Port ? I'd hate to realize that you dudes chop the garlic in micro bits. The idea is to smash them with your fist; what do you know ?

[Bob A]

Since we've gone off the rails just a bit, I should mention that bacon is food for the gods. (As an aside from the above aside, my favorite quotes on the subject of pork are from the Joy of Cooking, where it was mentioned that "saints and pigs are more appreciated when they're dead" and "Eternity can be defined as a ham and two people".)

Beyond that, garlic is an absolute necessity for a worthwhile life. Sufficient garlic breath is a factor in preventing transmission of colds and flu through droplet contamination, as potential vectors are taken aback by the fumes. Pre-emptive garlic eating also assists in choosing the proper mate.