Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

A. G. Maisey · 21st October 2010, 10:18 PM

I previously advised that I had requested assistance in the gaining of clarification of Groneman's text, from one of the original translators into English.

This translator is Timothy Rogers of Oxford. He has conducted a thorough investigation of this troublesome passage, in both the German and Dutch versions, including consultation with a professional translator in German and Dutch, and he has provided me with the following findings:-

1)--- the original German is grammatically flawed and is ambiguous

2)--- it is possible for the word "gana" to refer to all the hilt types mentioned, or to only one hilt type, possibly only to the type mentioned as flowers.

3)--- an interpretation is often a matter of taking a decision in respect of the most likely probability.

4)--- the most likely probability in this case is that the word "gana" in this passage refers to both corn cobs and flowers, and does not refer to humans, animals, nor hilts made from tree roots resembling humans.

5)--- both the Huyser version of this text, and the English version of the text favour the interpretation that "gana" refers only to the corn cob/flower type of hilt.

6)--- it is likely that because of the grammatically flawed German this passage has previously been misunderstood and the name "gana" has been erroneously applied to the hilts made from tree roots resembling the human form.

I believe the findings as reported by Tim Rogers endorse the opinions of Kai and Guwaya, in respect of the ambiguity of the original German text, but they have provided the perspective of a professional point of view in respect of intended meaning.

Based upon this, I am of the opinion that the name "gana" has been used in error for a very long time. Dr. Groneman's misunderstood text has seen this name applied to hilts of various materials that have been formed by nature, rather than by man. In fact, Dr. Groneman's initial reference was only to hilts coming from tree roots, and which resembled the human form. He did not intend the name "gana" to be applied to this type of hilt.

Dr. Groneman's text can no longer be employed as legitimisation for the erroneous use of this term"gana".

21st October 2010, 10:18 PM	#177
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,700	I previously advised that I had requested assistance in the gaining of clarification of Groneman's text, from one of the original translators into English. This translator is Timothy Rogers of Oxford. He has conducted a thorough investigation of this troublesome passage, in both the German and Dutch versions, including consultation with a professional translator in German and Dutch, and he has provided me with the following findings:- 1)--- the original German is grammatically flawed and is ambiguous 2)--- it is possible for the word "gana" to refer to all the hilt types mentioned, or to only one hilt type, possibly only to the type mentioned as flowers. 3)--- an interpretation is often a matter of taking a decision in respect of the most likely probability. 4)--- the most likely probability in this case is that the word "gana" in this passage refers to both corn cobs and flowers, and does not refer to humans, animals, nor hilts made from tree roots resembling humans. 5)--- both the Huyser version of this text, and the English version of the text favour the interpretation that "gana" refers only to the corn cob/flower type of hilt. 6)--- it is likely that because of the grammatically flawed German this passage has previously been misunderstood and the name "gana" has been erroneously applied to the hilts made from tree roots resembling the human form. I believe the findings as reported by Tim Rogers endorse the opinions of Kai and Guwaya, in respect of the ambiguity of the original German text, but they have provided the perspective of a professional point of view in respect of intended meaning. Based upon this, I am of the opinion that the name "gana" has been used in error for a very long time. Dr. Groneman's misunderstood text has seen this name applied to hilts of various materials that have been formed by nature, rather than by man. In fact, Dr. Groneman's initial reference was only to hilts coming from tree roots, and which resembled the human form. He did not intend the name "gana" to be applied to this type of hilt. Dr. Groneman's text can no longer be employed as legitimisation for the erroneous use of this term"gana".