This thread has been highly informative, and actually is well placed as I earlier noted as it is moving in concert with the extremely productive 'kattara' thread which is running concurrently. I would like to note that as David has said, threads to tend to wander, especially in the case of those where actual discussion is taking place. It is important to remember that in the study of these weapons, the scope of investigation can often expand over a wide range of subjects. The original question concerned the markings on what we know is an Omani sa'if, commonly termed 'kattara' and what they meant.
The inclusion of the now well dimensioned investigation on these swords, as well as thier use and history is distinctly pertinant in looking into these markings, the subject of which is my own favored field of study. While I had included my own observations on the markings, it is important to consider that the intended use of the sword, and the possibility of it being one of the examples used in pageantry vs. actual combat is indeed important. The idea of this is obviously, certain markings or character in motif or features do often offer certain demeanor to the sword itself.
The term demeanor brings to mind another topic, which here clearly deviates from my comments thus far toward the sword itself and its discussion, but goes to the character of my post here. This concerns the use of certain wording in discussions, specifically assertions of whether an opposing view is 'right' or 'wrong'. Obviously in discussions, there may be a number of views concerning the subject at hand, and the idea of these views being presented is so all concerned may evaluate and process all the information. In many cases, supporting evidence may be compelling enough to change the views of others, possibly all. This is considered constructive analysis, and to the benefit of all involved.
It is best to observe anothers view if contrary to that held personally, by wording such as 'I understand this differently', rather than use of terms which are perceived negatively such as 'wrong'. I am not saying it is 'wrong' to word this way, just that I see it differently
I dont necessarily agree with all of the views presented here, but I will say I have learned a lot, and wanted to thank everyone who has participated in these threads for outstanding discourse thus far. Lets keep the discussions going, and if things get perceivably 'off course' I think those participating are quite capable of bringing the original topic back into focus without direct challenge.
Thanks very much guys,
Jim