Well said Ariel, and while often difficult, there is value in the discussion of proper terms (aka , name game) as participants bring in research in rebuttal and elucidation, thus expanding the information at hand.
It is often interesting looking at our own language, and how many words have either dropped away, or often gained entirely different meanings through generations. While certainly in scholarly work, it is preferred to use proper terminology presuming that the readers are well informed enough to know what is being referred to specifically.It seems there is typically no shyness in using footnotes just the same for further reference and certainty in semantics.
In more casual discussions, as here and other, typically the well known terms that have been firmly become accepted in generations of writers help readers unaware of discrepancies fully understand the items referenced in the dialogue. For example if I were describing the transverse grip dagger of India as JAMADHAR, many readers would not realize I am referring to the KATAR.
In reading earlier accounts and narratives referring to the Scottish claymore, it is typically regarded by the initiated as the large two-hander used by Highlanders, however often the Scottish basket hilt is described in many references as a 'claymore'. Clearly there is a world of difference in the swords meant, and the reader is given a complete misconception.
The term broadsword is often used rather collectively prior to the 19th century in many period accounts describing a sword (most Scottish swords were termed broadsword whether double edged as meant or single edged).
There are so many dated terms in the English descriptions of swords as well as nomenclature it is virtually impossible to describe them all here.
With ethnographic weapons, transliteration, colloquial or vernacular terms take these issues to another dimension, and though exaggerated (in frustration) one authority on weapons of certain native regions exclaimed, the name for these changes almost village to village.
It is a tall order, but I do agree, every effort to bring these arms terms up to date and correctly applied must continue. As these efforts advance, I think it is incumbent on the writer to ensure the alternate or previously held terms are adequately noted as we move forward. In time these terms will become properly known and placed, with the former terms noted as historical footnotes as items of associated interest.
|