Another Puukko (I think ?)

A. G. Maisey · 28th April 2008, 03:19 AM

I have heard and seen this discussion many, many times.

But usually the subject matter is some cutting implement from South East Asia.

Over the years I have come to think of this obsession with classification as "The Name Game".

In my own field of keris and SE Asian weaponry I have long opted for the use of English names for things where an English name can be used, and where I am using English. Most especially do I endorse this approach for those things which are foreign to the person I am in discussion with. If I am in discussion with somebody in Indonesia I will use the Indonesian terms, and if I am in discussion with somebody in Jawa, a part of Indonesia, I will use the Javanese terms. If I am in discussion with somebody in Australia I will use the English terms.

I really do not understand why it should be necessary to use a foreign word to describe something when there is a perfectly good English word that will do the same job.

However, if we do wish to classify a knife, or any other object, from a foreign source, I believe that some care should be taken in so doing. Thus, a classificatory approach could be, for example :- a knife, probably from the Kauhava region of Finland and commonly referred to in that place as a puukko. In the case of a written record, this classification should be dated, and if available, a reference for the classification given.

In normal English language discussion such a knife could be referred to as a "Finnish knife".

I have often heard the counter argument put that we should use the correct name from point of origin, even though we are speaking, or writing, in English, but what legitimacy is there to using the "correct" native name, when as English speakers we can neither pronounce the word correctly, nor understand the cultural connotations that are attached to the word? To us, it is a knife. Just that.

28th April 2008, 03:19 AM	#21
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,994	I have heard and seen this discussion many, many times. But usually the subject matter is some cutting implement from South East Asia. Over the years I have come to think of this obsession with classification as "The Name Game". In my own field of keris and SE Asian weaponry I have long opted for the use of English names for things where an English name can be used, and where I am using English. Most especially do I endorse this approach for those things which are foreign to the person I am in discussion with. If I am in discussion with somebody in Indonesia I will use the Indonesian terms, and if I am in discussion with somebody in Jawa, a part of Indonesia, I will use the Javanese terms. If I am in discussion with somebody in Australia I will use the English terms. I really do not understand why it should be necessary to use a foreign word to describe something when there is a perfectly good English word that will do the same job. However, if we do wish to classify a knife, or any other object, from a foreign source, I believe that some care should be taken in so doing. Thus, a classificatory approach could be, for example :- a knife, probably from the Kauhava region of Finland and commonly referred to in that place as a puukko. In the case of a written record, this classification should be dated, and if available, a reference for the classification given. In normal English language discussion such a knife could be referred to as a "Finnish knife". I have often heard the counter argument put that we should use the correct name from point of origin, even though we are speaking, or writing, in English, but what legitimacy is there to using the "correct" native name, when as English speakers we can neither pronounce the word correctly, nor understand the cultural connotations that are attached to the word? To us, it is a knife. Just that.