In a multiethnic ( foreign and domestic) and multilingual society like India it is inavoidable that same objects would carry different names and different objects would carry same name.
Ideally, to be academically precise, we have to use name given by their original owners. Thus, Mysorean or Hyderabadi Bichhwa should be properly called Baku if it was made in Karnataka and Vinchu if it hails from Maharashtra.
Since precise identification of origin is largely impossible, we have a problem.
Alternatively, we can use names and specific features reported to us by Egerton and Rawson. That's fine in some cases, but fallacious in others. Pant, despite spending all his professional life in India, just lifted all their entries without thoughtful criticism. Elgood is likely the most reliable, but even he is inconsistent occasionally and his authority may enshrine his errors for generations to come ( like in the case of Stone).
So, what are we to do?
My personal inclination would be to stick to local terminology whenever possible and avoid obviously Europe- imposed ones like in cases of Khyber knife, Karud and such. The exception to this suggestion would be the case when the original terminology is totally unavailable and we are forced to invent one for communication purposes ( examples: Bukharan saber, Afghani pseudo-shashka). As soon as we know the true name ( example: Yataghan Karadeniz aka Laz Bichaq) we should use it instead. Transcription variability may be ignored ( churra, choora, ch'hura), because no transcription can precisely convey native sounding of a foreign word. Broken English is an international language of science.
I realize that some ( many?) would disagree, but this is still a free country, isn't it?
|