Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Jens I very much agree with the approach you are taking to this virtual nonsense which often evolves with the dreaded 'name game' which seems to evolve in discussions here often over as many years as I can recall.
What it amounts to is that as you and I have agreed over as many years, it is important to serious researchers on arms to be aware of the alternate terms for weapons used in the vernaculars and parlance of the people who actually used them.
This is because if we are relying on contemporary narratives and accounts, or translated resources, we must know such terms to be sure we are reading about the same weapon we are researching. Without some sort of cross reference or thesaurus of terms for these weapons, especially by dialect, region or period, accurate investigation is useless.
I can recall being told by a key ethnographic researcher on Indonesian weapons, often the same weapon can be called by different terms almost 'by village'. Exaggerated perhaps, but the same dilemma applies often and widely.
I think that using an accepted term used pretty much universally in the vernacular of students of arms, with 'katar' a prime example, it is probably not only acceptable but advisable that it remain the same. This is so we can be sure semantically that we are talking about the same weapon.
The only thing I would hope would be accepted is that some sort of footnote or cross reference could be established as part of the alternate terms for other serious researchers.
For general conversation obviously, there is no such need. I simply often place such terms in parenthesis for such convenience, but clearly many people think it is too much info.