Classifying shashka--a serious discussion of typology

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

Well, it depends how you look at it.
Since Bukharan saber developed independently of the Caucasian shashka and adopted none of its features it cannot be viewed as " bogus, sham, phony, artificial, mock, ersatz, quasi-, fake, false, spurious, deceptive, misleading, assumed, contrived, etc"
It is a genuinely independent object, resembling a parallel development. It is not a "pseudo" anything:-)

The Afghani one , on the other hand, derived from an old prototype, but adopted many features imitating the real shashka. Thus, IMHO, it is a "pseudo" one.

At the end of the day, it is a matter of semantics, isn't it?

Unfortunately you know that the Bukharan "shashka" is not related to shashka but what about the rest of the world??? So in the sense that the Bukharan is not actually a shashka I think "pseudo is more appropriately used than for the Afghan shashka which can at least semi-accurately be called a shashka.

I was thinking that using "pseudo" with Bukharan would be telling people who run into these types of swords that they are not actually shashka at all (you convinced me of this).

Lets say you wanted to divide / separate these three groups of swords into three categories as in three Pinterest boards. One for Caucasian / Circassian shashka, one for Afghan shashka and one for the Bukharan type of sabre that is currently being called "shashka". How would you get the point across that the Bukharan "shashka" is not actually a shashka at all, calling it a "Bukharan pseudo shashka might be helpful.

It really comes down to your own interpretation of "pseudo" and how it is best applied.