Karud: the weapon that did not exist:-)

[motan]

Hi all,
I am a late comer to this discussion because I have been away from computers for several weeks.
Ariel, I join the rest in congratulating you on the fine research work. Besides the facts presented, it is also very plausible, because in many languages short vowls are inserted in a consonant cluster whenever it is uncomfortable to pronounce. The best example I know is spoken Palestinian Arabic where this is done in almost every other word.
However, I also see kronckew's point: why not use karud whether it is invented or not? The naming question has been discussed many times as I understand, but it is a very important for this forum and therefore I will add my own opinion.
No method of naming is without serious flaws. The use of "collectors" terms may not reflect any insight at all and different names for the same items are common, as well as mindless copying of names read somewhere. Local "real" names are good to know, but are often generic and reflect a language of origin more that a type. Many names mean knife, dagger or sword in their language of origin' like saif in Arabic as opposed to shamshir in Persian.

This means that all names are rather loose denotations of certain types and not definitions or tool in a classification system, like in biological species for example. So, any discussion that has names as focus, and these very common in the forum, has really not much value and is far less meaningful than questions like age, origin, use, materials etc. It is not that the discussion of naming is without value, but in contrast to other subjects, there can not be absolute right or wrong because weapon names do not represent real entities.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes, precisely.

[ariel]

Motan, thank you.
That is my sentiment exactly, and I stated it at the very end of my post.

There is no way we can undo a century of popular usage. Informal discussions will still use "Karud" as a stenographic term. There is, however, a measure of relief in finally knowing whence this European mistranscription come. It was called "Kard" in Farsi and "Kord" in Dari- speaking areas. It will be up to professional arms historians whether they continue to use it in academic publications. I am encouraged by a long list of authors describing it as " straight-bladed pesh kabz", which it is in reality.

Again, thanks to everybody for your interest and opinions.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

Motan, thank you.
That is my sentiment exactly, and I stated it at the very end of my post.

There is no way we can undo a century of popular usage. Informal discussions will still use "Karud" as a stenographic term. There is, however, a measure of relief in finally knowing whence this European mistranscription come. It was called "Kard" in Farsi and "Kord" in Dari- speaking areas. It will be up to professional arms historians whether they continue to use it in academic publications. I am encouraged by a long list of authors describing it as " straight-bladed pesh kabz", which it is in reality.

Again, thanks to everybody for your interest and opinions.

Ariel, actually you have been arguing that the term "karud" should not be acknowledged or used at all. You specifically mention using only "pesh kabz" or "kard"...........

Whether currently we should call it Peshkabz, acknowledging the similarity of their physical structure, or Kard, acknowledging its correct pronounciation, is a matter of individual preference, although some uniformity might be useful. But all references to a special weapon called Karud have no linguistic or scientific basis and should be stricken out from professional literature.

So how about other terms, how about "kirach", should it not just be a tulwar since the blade is just straight instead of curved?

[ariel]

[QUOTE=estcrh]Ariel, actually you have been arguing that the term "karud" should not be acknowledged or used at all.

Eric, please be kind enough to actually read the last two words in your citation from my post :" Professional literature"



So how about other terms, how about "kirach", should it not just be a tulwar since the blade is just straight instead of curved?

Kirach or alt. kirich are likely to be ( mis) transcriptions of Turkic word for Kilic ( also just " sword"). That's my hint to you. If you wish to devote time and effort to uncover the real local name for this pattern, you are more than welcome. I shall be the first to applaud you.

[Mercenary]

Kir(a)ch (the same as in the case of kar(a)d).
"Kirch tulwar" (most correctly "kirch tuRwar") - straight sword, literally means "sword for to split (to cleave)".

[ariel]

So, the correct name of Kirach is Kirch?
Sounds good to me:-)

I applaud you.
BTW, where does this information come from?

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by motan

Hi all,
I am a late comer to this discussion because I have been away from computers for several weeks.
Ariel, I join the rest in congratulating you on the fine research work. Besides the facts presented, it is also very plausible, because in many languages short vowls are inserted in a consonant cluster whenever it is uncomfortable to pronounce. The best example I know is spoken Palestinian Arabic where this is done in almost every other word.
However, I also see kronckew's point: why not use karud whether it is invented or not? The naming question has been discussed many times as I understand, but it is a very important for this forum and therefore I will add my own opinion.
No method of naming is without serious flaws. The use of "collectors" terms may not reflect any insight at all and different names for the same items are common, as well as mindless copying of names read somewhere. Local "real" names are good to know, but are often generic and reflect a language of origin more that a type. Many names mean knife, dagger or sword in their language of origin' like saif in Arabic as opposed to shamshir in Persian.

This means that all names are rather loose denotations of certain types and not definitions or tool in a classification system, like in biological species for example. So, any discussion that has names as focus, and these very common in the forum, has really not much value and is far less meaningful than questions like age, origin, use, materials etc. It is not that the discussion of naming is without value, but in contrast to other subjects, there can not be absolute right or wrong because weapon names do not represent real entities.

Motan,
A brilliantly written and concise closing summary to the discussion here, and perfectly describing these circumstances concerning the terminology used to describe various weapons.
You may be late to the discussion, but I cant help thinking of the analogy of 'the cavalry arriving' !!
Thank you!

Jim