Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

A. G. Maisey · 23rd August 2007, 08:55 AM

Pak Ganja, I apologise for not being sufficiently clear in what I wrote.

My mention of mundhak does not necessarily disallow your hypothesis, but to disallow Jensen's use of the word it would be necessary to go to his source of information and investigate that in terms of time, place and informant.

We need to realise that what we may accept as correct today was not necessarily correct at some time in the past, similarly, something that was current usage at some time in the past, need not necessarily be correct today.

All I have done is produce a possible word that could be part of the answer to Jensen's usage. The way in which it originated could have been distorted or misunderstood by the person who provided the source that Jensen drew upon. When we start to play with possibilities in words transmitted into foreign languages we are really opening a can of worms.

My personal opinion on all these dapur names, pamor names and etc, etc, etc is that they are really not worth a cup full of cold water.Especially when we get into regional variations. Viewed from the historical perspective current names of anything can be misleading as to source.Yes, we need some sort of commonality of terminology in order to communicate, but really, the whole thing can become ridiculous.

Perhaps our time might be better spent in attempting to fathom the meaning of various aspects of the keris, rather than wandering around in wordland--Lullaby of Wordland. And when I speak of meaning, I am not speaking of the current philosophical meanings that are so readily and easily bounced around.

23rd August 2007, 08:55 AM	#22
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,700	Pak Ganja, I apologise for not being sufficiently clear in what I wrote. My mention of mundhak does not necessarily disallow your hypothesis, but to disallow Jensen's use of the word it would be necessary to go to his source of information and investigate that in terms of time, place and informant. We need to realise that what we may accept as correct today was not necessarily correct at some time in the past, similarly, something that was current usage at some time in the past, need not necessarily be correct today. All I have done is produce a possible word that could be part of the answer to Jensen's usage. The way in which it originated could have been distorted or misunderstood by the person who provided the source that Jensen drew upon. When we start to play with possibilities in words transmitted into foreign languages we are really opening a can of worms. My personal opinion on all these dapur names, pamor names and etc, etc, etc is that they are really not worth a cup full of cold water.Especially when we get into regional variations. Viewed from the historical perspective current names of anything can be misleading as to source.Yes, we need some sort of commonality of terminology in order to communicate, but really, the whole thing can become ridiculous. Perhaps our time might be better spent in attempting to fathom the meaning of various aspects of the keris, rather than wandering around in wordland--Lullaby of Wordland. And when I speak of meaning, I am not speaking of the current philosophical meanings that are so readily and easily bounced around.