Javanese machete??

[tom hyle]

Interesting that the swelling seems to be thought of as distinctly SE Asian; I had considered it fairly distinctly European; interesting if we ever find out which way that spread.
BTW, The term recurve is AFAIK being used incorrectly here. A recurved blade is not one that curves forward (is the thinking that this is a "re"verse curve?), but one that curves one way, and then the other, usually forward and then back (ie curves and then re-curves; to re-do means to do again; curves then curves again; note that a sword is spoken of as curving; the verb form is used, even though it is not actually performing action, but just sitting there with a curve; seems odd to me suddenly, and perhaps to non-native readers of English, but language often is odd, and this usage is not limitted to weapons); thus the cutting edge of this sword is techincally recurved, though in the opposite of the usual manner; more normally recurved edges are on kukuri, for instance. More swords have a recurved cutting edge than an overall recurved shape. More usually the swelling this implies is toward the tip (ala kukuri), rather than toward the base of the blade, as here, but then that may just be of examples I've seen, and may be influenced by the prevalence of weapons over tools in my sampling of foreign blades........

[Ian]

Tom:

I've always been a little confused by the use of "recurved." Whether the term applies to the cutting edge or the overall shape of the blade. Is there a standard "recurved" shape and a mirror-image "reverse-recurved" shape? And it is interesting to note whether the resulting blade is usually forward-weighted (towards the tip), as seems to be the fashion for most standard recurved blades, or back-weighted (towards the hilt) as may be seen here with a reverse-recurved blade. You raise some good questions about terminology and the function of these various shapes.

Those for whom English is not their first language must get some amusement from the way we spend time sorting through word definitions and syntax.

Ian.

Originally Posted by tom hyle

Interesting that the swelling seems to be thought of as distinctly SE Asian; I had considered it fairly distinctly European; interesting if we ever find out which way that spread.
BTW, The term recurve is AFAIK being used incorrectly here. A recurved blade is not one that curves forward (is the thinking that this is a "re"verse curve?), but one that curves one way, and then the other, usually forward and then back (ie curves and then re-curves; to re-do means to do again; curves then curves again; note that a sword is spoken of as curving; the verb form is used, even though it is not actually performing action, but just sitting there with a curve; seems odd to me suddenly, and perhaps to non-native readers of English, but language often is odd, and this usage is not limitted to weapons); thus the cutting edge of this sword is techincally recurved, though in the opposite of the usual manner; more normally recurved edges are on kukuri, for instance. More swords have a recurved cutting edge than an overall recurved shape. More usually the swelling this implies is toward the tip (ala kukuri), rather than toward the base of the blade, as here, but then that may just be of examples I've seen, and may be influenced by the prevalence of weapons over tools in my sampling of foreign blades........

[marto suwignyo]

Firstly let me talk about the word "recurved".
I could well be wrong in the way I have used this word to convey my intent. To me, a "recurved blade" is a blade that is curved, and has its cutting edge on the inside of the curve.

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines recurve as:-

"To turn back in a curve upon its previous direction. Hence, recurved or bent back; having a backwards curve."

I understand this as meaning that if an object is straight, and one end is turned back towards the direction of the other end, it is recurved.There is no necessity for a curve to exist, prior to a second curve being formed, for a thing to possess the quality of being "recurved". In simple terms, "recurved" has the same meaning in the English language as "curved", but probably expresses the degree of curve by requiring a recurved thing to bend back towards its beginning position.

Tom Hyle uses the khukri as an example of a recurved blade, and up to ten minutes ago I would have thought of a khukri as having a recurved blade, in that its second curve moves back towards the level of its first curve. But I now think that I would have been wrong. The correct meaning of the word does not seem to be this at all.

So, as I said, my use of recurved to describe a blade that is simply curved, but perhaps lacking the degree of curve to make it recurved, is probably wrong, and for this imprecise use of English I apologise. English is a very difficult language. One could study it all one`s life and still learn something new each day. I have never looked at the dictionary meaning or "recurved" before, and Tom Hyle`s remarks forced me to check and see if was talking sense or nonsense. It wasn`t nonsense, but it was imprecise.

To clarify the form of the blade in what I know as a bendho:- the blade is straight, with a curve at its front end, and its cutting edge is on the inside of the curve.

KIAI yth

Thank you very much for your response to my query.

So, in Wonogiri, half an hour south of Solo, and in Madiun about one and a half hours east of Solo, this tool would be recognised as an "arit gedhe". Do you happen to know if it can be described as an "arit gedhe" in the area around Sragen?

Yes, I understand the distinction you are making between the name and the description of "arit gedhe" and "arit sing gedhe". However, what I know as an arit gedhe is in fact gedhe. Still, as we agree, names vary.

I find it interesting that you claim the small pusaka version of a kujang is called a kudhi.

Kudhis and kujangs are similar, and what I have found is that in Solo nobody makes any distinction between the two. An ahli tosan aji might, but ordinary people, craftsmen, dealers, tradespeople refer to kudhi, kujang, and in fact any other small,old, curved type blades as kudhis. This common usage may be wrong, but it is the way people right now refer to these things, in one specific location.
Similar situation with the "bendho" shown on page 34 of van Zonneveld. Since this discussion started I have shown this picture to four different people who are all Javanese. I don`t have any idea at all what the name for van Zonneveld`s "bendho" is, but the other four people I have shown it to all want to call it a kitchen knife----simply "piso".Maybe the only person who could give the exactly correct name to this thing is somebody who lives where it is used.

Anyway, back to the kudhi/kujang.
Kujangs are distinctly West Javanese, and there are several different shapes. Harsrinuksmo shows five ot six different shapes that he identifies as kujangs. He also shows several different shapes of kudhi. The kujangs look like the kudhis, and the kudhis look like the kujangs. Harsrinuksmo says that the difference is that kujangs are from West Java, kudhis are from Java and Madura, that is, to the east. He also says that a the base difference between the two is that a kudhi is a type of spear with a short shaft, while a kujang is something you hold with one hand.He shows a tool form of a kudhi, and this is exactly the shape of what I know as a bendho, but with that little axe-like projection we were talking about.This is a bit different to what I know as a luke, but it agrees exactly with what Kiai Carita knows as a kudhi.

To summarise:- if we can believe Harsinuksmo, kujangs are single hand weapons that come from West Java and that are used with one hand; kudhis are short spears that come from Java and Madura; but the tool form of a kudhi has a curved blade, sharpened on the inside of the curve, and with an axe-like projection near the handle, and is to all intents and purposes a bendho with a lump.

The name bendho is not a generic name for something: it is a specific name for a specific tool but this tool does have some variations, just as a chisel, or a sickle , has variations, however, some people will call a bendho a parang, because parang is a generic name for machete type tools.

I think all this just goes to show how very difficult it can be to try to put exactly correct names on any things from this part of the world. I`m not only talking about tools and weapons, but about anything at all. If we want to name something, the name should also include time and place.

[Kiai Carita]

Originally Posted by marto suwignyo

Kudhis and kujangs are similar, and what I have found is that in Solo nobody makes any distinction between the two. An ahli tosan aji might, but ordinary people, craftsmen, dealers, tradespeople refer to kudhi, kujang, and in fact any other small,old, curved type blades as kudhis. This common usage may be wrong, but it is the way people right now refer to these things, in one specific location.

Comment: The people of Solo (and under Solo) do not generally use kudi, which is more a pasisir tool. Utilitarian kudi are generally not pamor. I have never seen a kudi with pamor but have heard of it. I have however seen a kudi with a short handle. As to kujang there is much more than is in the Ensiklo-keris B.H.

Originally Posted by marto suwignyo

Similar situation with the "bendho" shown on page 34 of van Zonneveld. Since this discussion started I have shown this picture to four different people who are all Javanese. I don`t have any idea at all what the name for van Zonneveld`s "bendho" is, but the other four people I have shown it to all want to call it a kitchen knife----simply "piso".Maybe the only person who could give the exactly correct name to this thing is somebody who lives where it is used.

I would find it hard to believe that a Sundanese would use the word bendo because to the Sundanese ear the word would sound funny. I think VZ made a mistake.

Originally Posted by marto suwignyo

The name bendho is not a generic name for something: it is a specific name for a specific tool but this tool does have some variations, just as a chisel, or a sickle , has variations, however, some people will call a bendho a parang, because parang is a generic name for machete type tools.

If the bendho has a beak on top (to make it possible to be named an arit-gedhe) it can not be named a parang. However without the beak it could be a parang or a golok but that would not be the precise name. A parang is lighter like a sugarcane cutter, a Rwanda machette like in the films. A golok is finely made to function as a martial weapon as well as a utilitarian chopper. The bendho is the most humble and is not a martial weapon.

Originally Posted by MARTO SUWIGNYO

I think all this just goes to show how very difficult it can be to try to put exactly correct names on any things from this part of the world. I`m not only talking about tools and weapons, but about anything at all. If we want to name something, the name should also include time and place.

This is very true. For instance the word yoni in the keris world in Jawa now means the esoteric powers in the keris. It used to mean the female counterpart of the lingga(m). But a Solo prince used the word yoni in a seminar in the 80's and all followed suit, this story is in the Ensikeris.

....Marto, I live around 30 km from Sragen and the dalangs from my village perform in Sragen and vice versa. Around Sragen people know arit gedhe and also they should in Palur. Maybe, your wife, as a nice girl, never went to villages and forests or the kebun to collect firewood for if she did, she would have needed her arit gedhe and she would sometimes call it a bendho too. It is a desa tool. In the kota it is rarely needed.

Hormat,
K. Carita

[marto suwignyo]

Attention Moderators

In the post of 27th. June, by Kiai Carita, the quote panel holds both my previous post, and additional remarks interspersed with my remarks.

Could you please clarify if this is correct usage of the quote panel facility.

If it is, I am afraid that I find this style of discussion a little confusing.

Thank you for your assistance.

[Ian]

Marto:

You raise a good point, but I think that sometimes the formatting of posts is unfamiliar to many people.

If you use the "Quote" button at the bottom of each post to reply in a thread, it will generate the material within that post and attribute it to the person who posted the comments.

The "tags" that appear before and after the quoted material look like this, except I have replaced the square brackets [ ] with curly brackets { } so that you can see the structure of the vB code (otherwise the code would be translated and you would see the quote as it usually appears).

{QUOTE=marto suwignyo}Quoted material appears here in italics to indicate it is not regular discussion material.{/QUOTE}

If anybody else types new material between the two "tags," it will be included in the quoted format -- which might confuse the reader about who said what. I think this is what Kiai did in the post you refer to, but he did separate his comments by prefacing them with "Comment:" so it would not appear that he had changed your words. Nevertheless, still confusing perhaps.

The way to avoid this confusion and have interspersed comments appear between the actual quoted text is to use the "tags" above and customize the formatting like this. Again, I am using curly brackets { } to illustrate the code, you need to replace those with square brackets [ ] when you use this method.

Click "Quote" to initiate the reply to a given post.

{QUOTE=marto suwignyo}Place the first part of the quote you wish to reply to after the "start tag," as already provided by the "Quote" formatting, and insert the "end tag" after the material you wish to respond to.{/QUOTE}

Type your comments to the first quote here.

Insert the "start tag" here for the next section of quoted material {QUOTE=author's name}. Follow this with the second piece of quoted material, and end it with the "end tag."{/QUOTE}

Insert your comments to the second quote here.

And so on, building as many quoted sections and replies as you wish. I think this method makes it easier for the reader to distinguish the quoted material from the responses, and I hope that the brief decription above helps those who are unfamiliar with how the formatting codes work.

It is okay to remove pieces of the quoted material that you do not wish to respond to, but it is customary to indicate that material has been removed by inserting three periods in a row "..." (referred to in English as an ellipsis) where such material has been deleted from the original quote. Again, in the interests of clarity, it is good practice to show what you have left out of the original quote in this manner. Also, it can help avoid the author of the original quote being upset because you have managed to change his meaning or left out what he thinks are the most important points in what he said.

Clarity and accuracy when quoting others are important to good communication and for avoiding potential unpleasantries.

Thanks again to Marto for raising this question, and I hope these comments are helpful.

Ian.

----------------------------------------

To show how this looks in a thread, here is the above example where the curly brackets are replaced by the correct format with square brackets.

Originally Posted by marto suwignyo

Place the first part of the quote you wish to reply to after the "start tag," as already provided by the "Quote" formatting, and insert the "end tag" after the material you wish to respond to.

Type your comments to the first quote here.

Insert the "start tag" here for the next section of quoted material

Originally Posted by marto suwignyo

Follow this with the second piece of quoted material, and end it with an "end tag."

Insert your comments to the second quote here.

[Mark]

I edited Kiai's post to separate out the quotes.

I have also put your very helpful step-by-step tutorial on quoting, with a little editing to make it generic, as a sticky above.