On the Use of Indian Terms for Identification of Weapon Types

[A. G. Maisey]

As Jens has pointed out:- different people have different interests, and the whole of these different interests contribute to a holistic understanding of the item in question, be it an edged weapon or be it a teddy bear.

A correct understanding of the name of a weapon can sometimes indicate, or suggest, the origin of the weapon, or its method of use, or its mode of wear. So even though I am most definitely in the camp of those who oppose the "name game" for its own sake, I do support research that will give us a better understanding of the how, where, and why of a name that is applied to a weapon, or anything else for that matter.

In this thread there seems to be some discussion surrounding the words beginning with "P", "PH" and "F".(Fulad/ pulad /phulad)

Mercenary, since we are reading words that have been romanised from other scripts, would it be possible for you to clarify the pronunciation of words using these spellings?

Another point that perhaps we should take note of is the native tongue of the person who has transliterated from the original script into roman script. The romanised spellings of Javanese and Malay words that were transliterated by Dutch scholars are quite different to the transliterations of the same words by English scholars.

The reason I have raised this question of pronunciation is that I know a Balinese gentleman who studied in India for many years, and whose Indian name is spelt "Phal----", the "Ph" is not pronounced as in English, similar to "F", but rather it is pronounced as an aspirated "P".

[ariel]

Names are important. They are part of the object per se as well as the culture it came from. Remember Grimm Brothers? If you know the name of Rumpelstilskin, you have power over him.
Names were given to the weapons by masters and owners, they often have meanings and clues that the form and the function would miss.
David and Alan , both "krisologists" would undoubtedly bristle an the erroneous use of a name for a tiny hook at the base of a kris, and rightfully so! ( they are probably already seething by now, since I wrote kris, and not keris:-)))

Koummya and shibria are just curved knives, a variants of jambia ( or khanjar:-)
But just their names give us full info about the culture they came from and their appearance.

Stone ( of blessed memory) put Parang Nabur from Banjarmasin and Minasbad from Bicol in the same picture: one of his few obvious errors. Would he do it if he knew that they had different names? But they looked so much alike ! :-)

Names are integral parts of everything around us, they are what we use to orient ourselves in this confusing world. Semasiologists maintain that most of our problems stem from our imprecision in defining what exactly each and every word means.

Ignorance of a correct name, or just mis-spelling can land us in St. Paul, MN instead of San Paulo, Brazil :-)

[A. G. Maisey]

I agree wholeheartedly with you Ariel:- names are important.

In fact, I'll go further than this:- words are important.

Words are used to transfer ideas from one person's mind into the mind of another, if our use of words is imprecise all sorts of errors can occur.

Because of this, I can assure you that I will never bristle at an incorrect use, or knowledge of, keris terminology, in fact, I actively encourage the use of English words when we are using the English language as a medium of communication.

The truly important thing is that we understand one another, not that we all understand every minor usage of language.

But I must admit, I do find the pointless use of misunderstood words to be just slightly annoying, most especially so when a good English word will transfer an idea more effectively.

Perhaps the second paragraph of my post #49 may give some indication of my position in this matter of names.

[Jim McDougall]

This thread gets better and better!!!
Not only is it fascinating to see the perspectives on linguistics and terminology concerning references to these weapons. It is amazing to see these old references as shown by Mercenary...I had no idea of this early type of wooden weapon in India in this manner, and that certainly is interesting to see this explanation of the 'pata' term.

Also, thank you Fernando for showing these pata examples, are these from Daehnhardt's book ?
The 'pata' conundrum is yet another of India's edged weapon mysteries which remains elusively intriguing, and these images and these mentions of it very much rekindle the flame.

As has been shown, the importance of broadening our understanding of the various terms and names used for these arms is essential as we look to early narratives and works describing them. Having some sort of cross reference to align these would be ideal, but a daunting undertaking. Still, once through the philosophy of all this, any advance toward compiling this material will be useful in my opinion.

Mercenary, you seem to have a considerable acumen toward the weapons of India as well as the linguistics and etymology of the languages. I hope you will keep us advised of the article you are working on and its progress. I always am delighted to see attention to the weapons of India, and encourage any work toward better understanding the inherent complexities surrounding them.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Also, thank you Fernando for showing these pata examples, are these from Daehnhardt's book ? ..

Yes Jim, from his collection, as mentioned, and also from his books. I don't recall having seen patas when i had the previlege to visit his collection; which is no surprise, due to the myriad ot items that my eyes had to look at, in so little time.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... The 'pata' conundrum is yet another of India's edged weapon mysteries which remains elusively intriguing, and these images and these mentions of it very much rekindle the flame...

Yes, things are not yet clear. But that would be another deal.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Fernando, trying to represent the spoken word as the written word is very complex indeed. Look at the "international language" of English. Its a nightmare. There is no way you can read English phonetically, it just doesn't work. I'm truly glad I was born into an English speaking society, because I sincerely doubt that I would ever have been able to learn it as a second language.

But even though I am a native English speaker, I have encountered people from other places, notably parts of the UK, who are also native speakers of English and whom I simply cannot understand.

Then there are the historical conventions.

The whole thing sometimes becomes too confusing altogether.

[Ian]

Alan, you are so correct.

I had the good fortune to have been born and educated in the same English-speaking environment as you. For the last 35 years I have lived in the US, and had to learn a number of different English dialects and idiom. While UK and US English are close in many respects, there are obvious and not so obvious spelling and grammatical differences that must confuse the heck out of people for whom English is a second language. And then there is Ebonics, or African-American English, that has some substantial differences from Standard American English. I remember too growing up in Australia and hearing "Pidgin English", a condescending colonial form that was taught to Australian indigenous people, and those in Papua New Guinea and neighboring islands.

And these are just some of the major dialects. Within the UK there are many dialects also--Hiberno-English, West Country English, Scottish English, etc.

Like you, I would hate to try to master English as a second language. Idiomatic use must be very challenging to the newcomer. It must confuse folks enormously when confronted with phrases such as: to "take two bites at the cherry" [and no, this is not a sexual reference]; to "be down in the dumps;" to "take a "butcher's [hook]" at something; to "cut the ground from under your feet;" to "take the bull by the horns;" something that "does the trick;" someone is "mutton dressed up as lamb;" someone is "no spring chicken;" "to argue the toss;" "to blow the whistle;" and so on...

Ian.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Yes Fernando, trying to represent the spoken word as the written word is very complex indeed. Look at the "international language" of English. Its a nightmare. There is no way you can read English phonetically, it just doesn't work. I'm truly glad I was born into an English speaking society, because I sincerely doubt that I would ever have been able to learn it as a second language.

But even though I am a native English speaker, I have encountered people from other places, notably parts of the UK, who are also native speakers of English and whom I simply cannot understand.

Then there are the historical conventions.

The whole thing sometimes becomes too confusing altogether.

[ariel]

Thanks, Alan!
I am glad we are on the same page.
And this is the reason why I strongly insist on any interpretation of any foreign name to be done by a native speaker or, at least, by a foreigner fluent in the native language and immersed in local culture.


The thread on "Tilang Kemarau" amusingly illustrates the point :-)

[fernando]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

... Another point that perhaps we should take note of is the native tongue of the person who has transliterated from the original script into roman script. The romanised spellings of Javanese and Malay words that were transliterated by Dutch scholars are quite different to the transliterations of the same words by English scholars.

The reason I have raised this question of pronunciation is that I know a Balinese gentleman who studied in India for many years, and whose Indian name is spelt "Phal----", the "Ph" is not pronounced as in English, similar to "F", but rather it is pronounced as an aspirated "P".

Rather complex indeed Alan, this thing of the written language.
This "Ph" meaning "F" issue is long gone in other written universes.
... If i am allowed to widen this problematic to other languages to which romanized transcriptions are also practiced, should we also take into account that nations, ones more often than other, introduce reforms in their own orthography. In Portugal, like in other countries here around, the Greek digraphs were abandoned and replaced by simple graphemes; these odd names meaning that, for one, the "PH" was replaced by the "F". Thus we have that, we may (and do) have works in our libraries, namely chronicles from the discoveries period, where we either read the same terms with both "Ph" and "F", depending on the date of the publication.


.