Agreed 100% David.
The function of words is to move an idea from one person to another person.
Most reasonable people will adjust their language so that they are understood by the person with whom they are currently in discussion. As an example, it would be a waste of time for somebody who is bilingual to use , say, Italian, in a discussion with a native English speaker. Similarly it is a waste of time to speak to a boundary rider from Bourke in the same language that one uses to speak to the chairman of the board, again, one does not use exactly the same form of language to speak to the chairman of the board, as one would use with one's 14 year old son.
Reasonable people usually adjust their language so that they can be understood.
We know the various ways in which to refer to this type of work.
I would suggest that it now perfectly reasonable to use any of the terms.
However, in the case of the badik scabbard, if we use "repousse" perhaps we might need to qualify that word by the addition of "anterior" , or "obverse", or some other term denoting that the work was done from the front, as distinct from the back. This would then mean that we could describe repousse done from the back of the material as "posterior" repousse.
It doesn't really matter what terms are used to describe this work, provided that a clear understanding of meaning is achieved.
|