Well, old Willy Shakespeare probably said it best.
"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
...or cut as deep, eh?
Honestly, i do enjoy linguistics to some extent and find it a rather interesting field. However, in the end, how we name a weapon tells us very little about it in the long run. I am far more interested in it's cultural significance, how it was used and maintained, what symbolism might be connected to it aside from its functional use, how in might fit into the sociological hierarchy, etc. than with the actual naming of the thing. In the end names only serve to allow us as collectors to understand what thing we are actually discussing. This can lead to confusion at times as even "correct" names for the same thing can vary from region to region. Often enough the "proper" name for a weapon literally translates into something like "sword" or "knife" anyway. Perhaps we put too much focus on the name game and not enough on the meat of the matter.
