An early figural hilt

[Gustav]

Alan, the reason why I was enquiring about this excerpt:

when you write about things concerning Majapahit, you usually choose an academic approach, quoting academic writers, dictionaries etc. That gives an academic "weight" to your thought and it's impressive in a non-academical forum like ours.

The excerpt about which I was enquiring is written in the same academical modus, but the information given in it is a complete nonsense from academical viewpoint.

So it draws from the "knowledge of community".

About the distinction between "puppet", "repertoire" and "performance":

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

In the passage that you quote, I was writing about performances, which I believe is obvious.

It isn't obvious at all, because Wayang Golek as performance is never mentioned there, but the last part of your sentence explicitly mentions "prohibition that applied to the wayang golek puppets."

Even if we see Wayang Golek and Wayang Purwa as performance - the statement nevertheless stays a nonsense, even from non-academical viewpoint. If this certain kind of puppet was the nightmare of Raden Patah, it makes no sense to replace the performance using a certain kind of puppets with a performance of a certain repertoire.
It's desirable and possible to replace it with a performance using another certain kind of puppets, or dancers, etc.

Now I have got my answers and won't bother anybody with my enquiries about Wayang for some time.

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, I do deeply regret that my writing is so difficult for you to understand, please accept my most sincere apologies for this inadequacy, most especially so, as I have said nothing different in my last post than I have said in various ways in my preceding posts.

In my own defence, I did try very hard to explain the ways in which the word "wayang" can be understood, so I suspect that this entire rather ridiculous series of exchanges between us actually comes down to a simple matter of confusion in respect of language.

You have made me very disappointed in my own attempts to convey information. In this Forum I strive to write in what I consider to be a "conversational" style, a style of writing that tries to convey in text the way in which I would speak if we were all sitting in a big circle, face to face. I do try to the best of my ability to avoid the use of any faux academic approach, and in fact, I doubt that any objective assessment of my writing style could ever legitimately place it into the "academic" box. In fact, we are all just hobbyists putting forward our own experiences and opinions with, I assume, the objective of sharing those opinions & experiences with others of a similar mind.

In respect of the content of my posts to this present thread, and that you seem to consider have been written in an "academic" style, but that contain comments that you categorise as "a complete nonsense", well, I can only agree with you, if in fact you mistook my casual, relaxed, conversational approach as an "academic" style of writing, which it very clearly is not. I do admit, under pressure, that I have done my share, and perhaps more than my share of writing intended for academic use, and I assure you, the standards that must be met for this style of writing are much more stringent than the putting into text of a relaxed after dinner chat.

In any case, it appears that at last you are satisfied with the result of this rather amusing discussion, and I do hope that you can benefit from all that you have gained.

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

In my own defence, I did try very hard to explain the ways in which the word "wayang" can be understood, so I suspect that this entire rather ridiculous series of exchanges between us actually comes down to a simple matter of confusion in respect of language.

It is not a confusion in respect of language, as this odd sentence stays without sense no matter how you turn it. I have done my utmost in explaining why it has no sense and I obviously have failed.

[A. G. Maisey]

As you wish Gustav.

[David]

Gentlemen.
I do appreciate that both of you have managed to keep the contentious discuss on Wayang civil and orderly. As i am sure both of you realize, it seems we have reached the point where you both must agree to disagree and simply move on. While i am a strong believer that keris cannot be discussed in a vacuum and that other aspects of the surrounding culture are in fact integral to the understanding of the keris itself, i do feel that it is now time to leave this discussion of Wayang behind and return to discussion that is more immediately focussed on the keris itself. Thank you both for this very enlightening discussion though. It has been very interesting.

[Jean]

David,
I feel that you meant that "it is now time to leave this discussion..." and I fully agree with you

[David]

Originally Posted by Jean

David,
I feel that you meant that "it is now time to leave this discussion..." and I fully agree with you

Yes Jean, thanks! I am sure my finger fully intended to hit that "w". LOL!
I'll fix it.