Originally Posted by ariel
You obviously do not belong to the Polish school of classification of swords:-) They consider a handle as the crucial element because it determines the manner of fencing.
Indeed, we have a Karabela that is defined as such by a semi- abstract “eagle head” handle but may have very different blades.
As per Elgood’s Glossary for the Jodhpur catalogue ( p. 953) ” The khanda is the ancient form of straight heavy sword , the blade swelling toward the point, often with a strengthening strip on the blade”. I am confused by the discrepancy between his own definition and the actual examples.
It is possible that different ethnic groups in India might have used the word “khanda” for different swords, each in their own language. Would be interesting to know whether this hypothesis is true.
Indeed I do not belong "Polish school," neither do I belong any other school, as schools tend to be rigid and dogmatic. Like for example according to the "Polish School" all swords from my previous posting would be Tulwars.
Maybe at the other end is another "school" that refrains from using specific terms for swords and instead calls them all "swords" or "sabres" followed by a long and detailed description of the shape. So you end up reading half page of description and still not being certain whar type of sword it is.
Therefore, I prefer very much the rule of logic, simplicity and clarity over any school.
Ultimately, naming swords would serve absolutely no practical purpose if by naming it, we wouldn't know exactly what it is.
We call a sword "Tulwar" in order to know what type of sword it is, otherwise we might simply call it "sword." However, if we start calling "Tulwar" all the swords (like the original meaning of the word "Tulwar" is), then this specific term will loose completely its purpose becoming nothing more than a synonim to "sword." We call a knife "Karud" in order to know exactly what type of knife it is, otherwise we may simply call it "knife" (or if you prefer "Kard").
Regarding the contradiction in Elgood's books, it is called "inconsistency" and I see it as a proof that nobody, not even Elgood, is infailible.