As Jim said, it's an old debate not only for the karud.
I remember the kattara story...
Ariel's explanation or demonstration is brilliant and clear.
I think no one can deny or contest that.
To me the whole thing can be just a footnote.
Two or three lines just to explain that Karud is a recent "European" invention with all the references mentionned by Ariel.
Now should we use karud or not?
I really don't know.
It's healthy to be open to changes.
If something is wrong, why not to say it and to move forward.
But then we will have a problem with terminology as Estrech said.
Europeans spent the last three hundred years to write Encyclopaedia and dictionnaries. If we look at regional terminology and local linguistic we will end with something strange.
What you will do with the khanjar and kindjal, should we call them only khanjar or only kindjal or simply daggers?
kaskara, nimcha.... same story should we call them simply saifs or just swords?
What about a pala? I know what a pala is, but I also know that it's a Greek word and probably all the pala were called kilij by the Ottomans.
The same with Moukhala and others... Do you know that most of koummiyas were called khanjers?
To me it's an endless and useless debate, you probably noticed that I normaly don't participate to these debates. So keep our vocabulary but just explain why and how to use it...