This was an entertaining thread, one of the countless discussions on the philosophies of edged weapon terminology and proper classification of weapon types. The only reasonable end result was 'it depends'.
It is quite clear that the hilts of these various ethnographic forms are distinctive to certain groups, ethnographically and geographically situated, and diffusion of forms have no boundaries of any kind in these respects.
The so called 'flyssa' sword of the Kabyles has always been a conundrum, and it is a relative late comer to ethnographic edged weapons, with its earliest known reference in 1820s, and which seems to have notably diminished in its most familiar form by later in 19th c . (according to LaCoste).
One of the most puzzling aspects of the flyssa in its traditional form, is how in the world it was used, as in examples with notably long blades they are terribly balanced, the handle is too small in accord, and the hand is not protected in any way. The only reference to these ever being used is a painting which I believe Ariel observed which depicted one of these in use.
As far as I have known, and have been told, these were more a traditional weapon obtained as a kind of rite of passage with young Kabyle men, and the blades had personal embellishments added to the traditional amuletic decoration. While many of these were captured by the French in their campaigns mid 19th c. they were most probably booty from homes rather than taken in any sort of combat.
It is not surprising that tribesmen in the Saharan and Maghrebi regions would lend the traditional designs and hilt styling in varying degree to swords that were indeed intended for use in more famliar manner. The range of such diffusion and degrees of variation and styling as noted, had no bounds, and these variant weapons were more pragmatically inclined to expected use.