I'm tempted to label these types of discussions "machete arguments," as in: "Is a machete a sword or a knife?"
The basic problem with any of these discussions is that swords and knives are defined within one culture, primarily by inferring general traits from known examples. Then we try to fit other people's inventions into these categories, based on whatever rules we created.
As Mr. Maisey pointed out with those Australian rules, in Australian customs, any weapon that is two-edged and 39 cm long is not a dagger, nor is anything that can't be readily concealed on a normal person. My apologies, but it is very hard not to become sarcastic about that definition. I keep wondering whether I'd get arrested for trying to hide a swordfish bill down my pants, if some cop decided to call it a dagger.
The Australian rules are derived from whatever examples the rule-makers found objectionable, and I laid out another rule "the chop test" that depended on function rather than shape and size. But all of these are rules we make up from the blades we handle or read about. They don't really answer the question, they just change the argument to one about rules rather than one about blades.
So what's the answer? There is none. A machete is a sword, and a machete is a knife. Depends on who is arguing which side.
Best,
F
|