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.