Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

A. G. Maisey · 18th November 2006, 07:29 AM

Thanks Michael.

As I said, I have the hardcopy of Macdonell, 1999 edition, New Delhi. In that there is no ganja, and no gonjo (which is probably what we should be looking for). On P81 there is the entry for "ganga" as treasury ( from Persian), and also the tavern/hemp entry, with a different pronunciation.No alternative spelling with a "j" is given.

I think it is important to remember this:- this word ganja is written in Javanese, when roman lettering is used, with a dot over the "a". It is pronounced "gonjo", not "ganja". Ganja is hemp. Gonjo is a part of a keris.

Now, when we go to look for this word in Sanscrit we need to look for a word with the same sound, and the two words given in Macdonell do not have the same sound, or even a similar sound, to "ganja" ( with dotted a) in Javanese.

Really, I feel like I am wading through knee deep mud in this matter. I did not just address this question this morning when Rick put his post up. I started to address it perhaps 20 years ago. I have been over, and over, and over all of the leads I can find. I have written to people who know Sanscrit as I know English. I have written to the author of an Old Javanese dictionary. I have had contact through a third party with a Brahmin priest and scholar.I have been worrying at this question for years.I am still no further advanced than I was when I started.

We must not be misled by the conventions of using Roman lettering, I am absolutely certain of that, but if we do not use those conventions , then we need to learn the original scripts and their pronunciations. That is a big job. So, we are stuck with Roman lettering, but if we are stuck with Roman letters, then we must take infinite care that we use the phonetics indicated by the writers of these dictionaries. We cannot just look at the letters, we must try to the utmost to give those letters the pronunciations that have been indicated. Since I at least, am not a professional linguist, I find this task quite trying.However, although it may be a struggle, I believe that this path is probably the only way forward.

Then there is the possibility that the word we need is not "gonjo" in the first place. Perhaps we need a word that uses "u" .

Or perhaps we need something else entirely. I do not know. What I do know is that there no easy answer to this question. I feel sure that the answer is buried in language, but I have tried for 20 years to access this answer , and I still have no answer, not even enough of an answer to form a half-hearted opinion.

I would very much like to come up with something that can be massaged into a logically supportable answer. So far I have failed.

Getting away from researching words, and looking at the current philosophical interpretations. I know these thoroughly. As a current interpretation I have no problem with them. If this is what people now believe, for those people who believe this, it is true. It is fact. It is real.However, these current interpretations are not supportable historically. Nor logically in any historical sense. What I am looking for is what the gonjo on a dagger meant to somebody who lived in Central Jawa1000 years ago.

I strongly suspect that it meant something to support or protect his hand.

Then there is this question:- although the word "gonjo" appears in Old Javanese, it does not necessarily mean that that was the word used to describe this part of a dagger 1000 years ago. Old Javanese was used up until not long before Mataram . Thats maybe a 400 year gap from when Old Javanese was not used , back to Prambanan. In the 21st century we no longer use words with the same sense as our grandfathers did.Certainly not as Elizabethans did.

When we start to ask questions about the meaning of parts of the keris, we open Pandora's box. Here we are looking at the gonjo, but this is only one of one thousand other questions, and sometimes formulating the question is more difficult than answering it.

Personally, I think that Rick has performed very, very well in raising this question. It truly is a doozy.

18th November 2006, 07:29 AM	#18
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,703	Thanks Michael. As I said, I have the hardcopy of Macdonell, 1999 edition, New Delhi. In that there is no ganja, and no gonjo (which is probably what we should be looking for). On P81 there is the entry for "ganga" as treasury ( from Persian), and also the tavern/hemp entry, with a different pronunciation.No alternative spelling with a "j" is given. I think it is important to remember this:- this word ganja is written in Javanese, when roman lettering is used, with a dot over the "a". It is pronounced "gonjo", not "ganja". Ganja is hemp. Gonjo is a part of a keris. Now, when we go to look for this word in Sanscrit we need to look for a word with the same sound, and the two words given in Macdonell do not have the same sound, or even a similar sound, to "ganja" ( with dotted a) in Javanese. Really, I feel like I am wading through knee deep mud in this matter. I did not just address this question this morning when Rick put his post up. I started to address it perhaps 20 years ago. I have been over, and over, and over all of the leads I can find. I have written to people who know Sanscrit as I know English. I have written to the author of an Old Javanese dictionary. I have had contact through a third party with a Brahmin priest and scholar.I have been worrying at this question for years.I am still no further advanced than I was when I started. We must not be misled by the conventions of using Roman lettering, I am absolutely certain of that, but if we do not use those conventions , then we need to learn the original scripts and their pronunciations. That is a big job. So, we are stuck with Roman lettering, but if we are stuck with Roman letters, then we must take infinite care that we use the phonetics indicated by the writers of these dictionaries. We cannot just look at the letters, we must try to the utmost to give those letters the pronunciations that have been indicated. Since I at least, am not a professional linguist, I find this task quite trying.However, although it may be a struggle, I believe that this path is probably the only way forward. Then there is the possibility that the word we need is not "gonjo" in the first place. Perhaps we need a word that uses "u" . Or perhaps we need something else entirely. I do not know. What I do know is that there no easy answer to this question. I feel sure that the answer is buried in language, but I have tried for 20 years to access this answer , and I still have no answer, not even enough of an answer to form a half-hearted opinion. I would very much like to come up with something that can be massaged into a logically supportable answer. So far I have failed. Getting away from researching words, and looking at the current philosophical interpretations. I know these thoroughly. As a current interpretation I have no problem with them. If this is what people now believe, for those people who believe this, it is true. It is fact. It is real.However, these current interpretations are not supportable historically. Nor logically in any historical sense. What I am looking for is what the gonjo on a dagger meant to somebody who lived in Central Jawa1000 years ago. I strongly suspect that it meant something to support or protect his hand. Then there is this question:- although the word "gonjo" appears in Old Javanese, it does not necessarily mean that that was the word used to describe this part of a dagger 1000 years ago. Old Javanese was used up until not long before Mataram . Thats maybe a 400 year gap from when Old Javanese was not used , back to Prambanan. In the 21st century we no longer use words with the same sense as our grandfathers did.Certainly not as Elizabethans did. When we start to ask questions about the meaning of parts of the keris, we open Pandora's box. Here we are looking at the gonjo, but this is only one of one thousand other questions, and sometimes formulating the question is more difficult than answering it. Personally, I think that Rick has performed very, very well in raising this question. It truly is a doozy.