Karud: the weapon that did not exist:-)

ariel · 19th August 2017, 09:05 AM

Alan,
Thanks for your effort. Nice to get a confirmation from yet another source.

mariusgmioc · 19th August 2017, 02:00 PM

Whether historically and linguistically correct or not, I see no reason why we cannot use the term "Karud" to name a specific type of knife that otherwise lacks a specific designation.

If we use the historically and linguistically correct term "Pesh-kabz," it will be rather ambiguous as we won't exactly know whether it is a straight blade knife or a recurved one.

If we use the even more historically and linguistically correct term "Kard," it will be even more confusing as it may refer to almost any type of knife from the Indo-Persian area of influence.

However, naming it "Karud," everybody will know what we are talking about.

Or at least I will...

PS: I think Estcrh was trying to point to the same idea since we had a discussoin on this topic in an earlier thread.

ariel · 19th August 2017, 02:15 PM

Eric and Marius,
I think you are misinterpreting the point. I do not particularly care what should we be calling it ( see the last paragraph of the posting). I was just suggesting what we should NOT call it. The moniker "Karud" is not a real word: it is just a phonetical error, a misprint so to say. No matter how convenient it is for us, it is IMHO rather silly to invent a separate weapon based on a peculiarity of Persian pronounciation of the "r" and "d" combination ( see Alan's entry).
Personally, I would prefer to call it "straight-bladed Pesh Kabz". Calling it "Kard" ( correct spelling) will confuse it with the established and correct name for a different dagger. Still, I might accept it if there was a consensus, but do not see why we should use a silly mippselling ... o-o-ps.... my bad:-)

Jim McDougall · 19th August 2017, 07:49 PM

This work by Ariel is really sort of a 'textbook' or classic example of serious arms study in depth analysis and investigative deduction. What I appreciate most is the well structured, thought through and well referenced detail as he explains the development of his theory.

These kinds of situations regarding 'what to call' a certain weapon form are very well known in studies of ethnographic weapon forms where instances of transliteration, and misunderstanding of linguistics or phonetic characterization become established terms in 'western' use. These kinds of situations occur even with European arms through vernacular terms or lore pertaining to various persons, events or places associated with certain form or style in a weapon, (i.e. Pappenheimer; colichemarde etc.).

It seems this instance, with 'karud' recalls the circumstance which I would call 'the scimitar syndrome'

where a phonetic corruption of a word or term results in term use for a form of weapon being used, rather vaguely, where there is no particular weapon in actuality existing.
The term scimitar is generally held to drive from Persian (again) 'shamshir', referring of course to these often deeply curved sabres. According to Burton (1884, p.126), the word resulted from Greek interpretation and with their not having a 'sh' sound in their language. From there it entered the European context which evolved into 'cimiterre' and 'sauveterre', finally into scimitar.
Indirectly it presumed to describe Turkish sabres and broadly oriental forms of sabre but in broadly collective way. The term 'scimitar' became a romantic description used dynamically by writers to portray exotic, flashing, curved sabres of basically non specific form. It is essentially a word to describe a type of sword which did not specify a certain form, only that it was a curved sabre of exotic form.

The 'name game' has been discussed often on these pages, and while there is a notable polarity in the article being examined by Ariel and his in depth analysis of it here, the end result is a comprehensive and most constructive look at these situations.

As has happened with various sword forms such as 'kaskara'; 'nimcha'; and 'flyssa' among others, none of these is known regionally by those terms, and the list goes on. These have become 'collectors terms' which in turn have become key semantically in the discussion and description of these distinct forms in the world of arms scholars.
To try to change these at this juncture would be not only counterproductive but disastrous as we could no longer simply use the known term.

While still using these various terms in the capacity in which they have become known in 'our vernacular' , it is wonderfully appropriate to have the background historically available, not only in the development of these weapons, but in the etymology of the terms they are called by.

I always applaud the courage of authors in publishing their work, and here both Dmitry and Ariel for venturing into this analysis of not just a weapon form, but the etymology surrounding it.

estcrh · 20th August 2017, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Eric and Marius,
I think you are misinterpreting the point. I do not particularly care what should we be calling it ( see the last paragraph of the posting). I was just suggesting what we should NOT call it.

Actually you are telling us what we should NOT call it, but why should we stop calling it a "karud"...Ariel you can call it a "cow" if you wish but to me the straight version of the pesh-kabz is a "karud". Making up a new name at this point does not make any sense to me. There are many other weapons and armors with made up names, as long as people understand what I am describing to them I am ok with it. When I tell people I know that I have a "karud"...they know exactly what I am talking about, they do not envision me holding a pesh-kabz, you want to take us backwards in time when people used one word to describe all sorts of swords and one word to describe all sorts of daggers. I do not agree with what you are suggesting here. A karud is not a kard, it is not a pesh-kabz, it is not a jambiya or khanjar, it is a specific type of dagger, call it whatever you want but it is certainly NOT a pesh-kabz.

estcrh · 20th August 2017, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Personally, I would prefer to call it "straight-bladed Pesh Kabz".

Why should anyone use this term when we already have a perfectly good, accepted and used term...."karud". I have no problem with people pointing out the origins of "Western terms" though.

People from Europe and the US like to categorize weapons and armor by type etc. Having a specific name for this particular dagger type makes sense, lumping it into the category of "pesh-kabz" or "kard" does not help anything as far as I can see.

Bob A · 20th August 2017, 06:39 AM

A remarkable linguistic study, and a clarion call for controversy, elegantly wrapped in the scholastic tradition, deserves the praise that has been laid at its figurative feet.

The "name game" exists in any number of disparate fields, most frequently when objects or concepts in one culture are studied by investigators in another. It is especially rampant in areas in which the original issue has been clouded by time, or the lack of any meaningful opportunity to learn from the originators. Traditions lapse, old people die, and are replaced by youngsters no longer vested in the old ways.

The search for karud is not as hampered as it might be, as there remain living exemplars of the originating culture, although language changes over time, both in vocabulary and pronunciation, and in the changes in the object or issue. Still, it cannot be denied that in this field, as in so many others, words and ideas have been taken out of context, and have formed a sort of meta-language, filled with descriptive terms unrecognisable by those who originated the object under study.

Insofar as in most cases, language does not alter function nor reality, but merely attempts to communicate information, unless and until proper correlations can be discovered and put into use, we will continue to find ourselves enmeshed in the inaccuracies introduced by those who came before, who often lacked to information that was developed subsequent to their original research. It should definitely be noted that in many cases this subsequent information would not exist at all, had they not ventured into the unknown.

All the above merely serves as a long-winded replacement for a simple concept, which I can not claim as my own; "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet".

A. G. Maisey · 20th August 2017, 06:54 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIYS9EQWkXg

Bob A · 20th August 2017, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIYS9EQWkXg

OK, I'm good with that.

Kubur · 20th August 2017, 07:48 AM

Hi,

As Jim said, it's an old debate not only for the karud.
I remember the kattara story...

Ariel's explanation or demonstration is brilliant and clear.
I think no one can deny or contest that.
To me the whole thing can be just a footnote.
Two or three lines just to explain that Karud is a recent "European" invention with all the references mentionned by Ariel.

Now should we use karud or not?
I really don't know.
It's healthy to be open to changes.
If something is wrong, why not to say it and to move forward.

But then we will have a problem with terminology as Estrech said.
Europeans spent the last three hundred years to write Encyclopaedia and dictionnaries. If we look at regional terminology and local linguistic we will end with something strange.
What you will do with the khanjar and kindjal, should we call them only khanjar or only kindjal or simply daggers?
kaskara, nimcha.... same story should we call them simply saifs or just swords?
What about a pala? I know what a pala is, but I also know that it's a Greek word and probably all the pala were called kilij by the Ottomans.
The same with Moukhala and others... Do you know that most of koummiyas were called khanjers?

To me it's an endless and useless debate, you probably noticed that I normaly don't participate to these debates. So keep our vocabulary but just explain why and how to use it...

estcrh · 20th August 2017, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kubur

Ariel's explanation or demonstration is brilliant and clear.
I think no one can deny or contest that.
To me the whole thing can be just a footnote.
Two or three lines just to explain that Karud is a recent "European" invention with all the references mentionned by Ariel.

I completely agree, any scholarly books, articles etc should mention the historical incorrectness of any term in common use which has a documented history but in daily life I do not think this effects anything significant.

19th August 2017, 09:05 AM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Alan, Thanks for your effort. Nice to get a confirmation from yet another source.

19th August 2017, 02:00 PM	#2
mariusgmioc Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Austria Posts: 1,889	Whether historically and linguistically correct or not, I see no reason why we cannot use the term "Karud" to name a specific type of knife that otherwise lacks a specific designation. If we use the historically and linguistically correct term "Pesh-kabz," it will be rather ambiguous as we won't exactly know whether it is a straight blade knife or a recurved one. If we use the even more historically and linguistically correct term "Kard," it will be even more confusing as it may refer to almost any type of knife from the Indo-Persian area of influence. However, naming it "Karud," everybody will know what we are talking about. Or at least I will... PS: I think Estcrh was trying to point to the same idea since we had a discussoin on this topic in an earlier thread.

19th August 2017, 02:15 PM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Eric and Marius, I think you are misinterpreting the point. I do not particularly care what should we be calling it ( see the last paragraph of the posting). I was just suggesting what we should NOT call it. The moniker "Karud" is not a real word: it is just a phonetical error, a misprint so to say. No matter how convenient it is for us, it is IMHO rather silly to invent a separate weapon based on a peculiarity of Persian pronounciation of the "r" and "d" combination ( see Alan's entry). Personally, I would prefer to call it "straight-bladed Pesh Kabz". Calling it "Kard" ( correct spelling) will confuse it with the established and correct name for a different dagger. Still, I might accept it if there was a consensus, but do not see why we should use a silly mippselling ... o-o-ps.... my bad:-)

19th August 2017, 07:49 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,801	This work by Ariel is really sort of a 'textbook' or classic example of serious arms study in depth analysis and investigative deduction. What I appreciate most is the well structured, thought through and well referenced detail as he explains the development of his theory. These kinds of situations regarding 'what to call' a certain weapon form are very well known in studies of ethnographic weapon forms where instances of transliteration, and misunderstanding of linguistics or phonetic characterization become established terms in 'western' use. These kinds of situations occur even with European arms through vernacular terms or lore pertaining to various persons, events or places associated with certain form or style in a weapon, (i.e. Pappenheimer; colichemarde etc.). It seems this instance, with 'karud' recalls the circumstance which I would call 'the scimitar syndrome' where a phonetic corruption of a word or term results in term use for a form of weapon being used, rather vaguely, where there is no particular weapon in actuality existing. The term scimitar is generally held to drive from Persian (again) 'shamshir', referring of course to these often deeply curved sabres. According to Burton (1884, p.126), the word resulted from Greek interpretation and with their not having a 'sh' sound in their language. From there it entered the European context which evolved into 'cimiterre' and 'sauveterre', finally into scimitar. Indirectly it presumed to describe Turkish sabres and broadly oriental forms of sabre but in broadly collective way. The term 'scimitar' became a romantic description used dynamically by writers to portray exotic, flashing, curved sabres of basically non specific form. It is essentially a word to describe a type of sword which did not specify a certain form, only that it was a curved sabre of exotic form. The 'name game' has been discussed often on these pages, and while there is a notable polarity in the article being examined by Ariel and his in depth analysis of it here, the end result is a comprehensive and most constructive look at these situations. As has happened with various sword forms such as 'kaskara'; 'nimcha'; and 'flyssa' among others, none of these is known regionally by those terms, and the list goes on. These have become 'collectors terms' which in turn have become key semantically in the discussion and description of these distinct forms in the world of arms scholars. To try to change these at this juncture would be not only counterproductive but disastrous as we could no longer simply use the known term. While still using these various terms in the capacity in which they have become known in 'our vernacular' , it is wonderfully appropriate to have the background historically available, not only in the development of these weapons, but in the etymology of the terms they are called by. I always applaud the courage of authors in publishing their work, and here both Dmitry and Ariel for venturing into this analysis of not just a weapon form, but the etymology surrounding it.

20th August 2017, 06:39 AM	#7
Bob A Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 419	A remarkable linguistic study, and a clarion call for controversy, elegantly wrapped in the scholastic tradition, deserves the praise that has been laid at its figurative feet. The "name game" exists in any number of disparate fields, most frequently when objects or concepts in one culture are studied by investigators in another. It is especially rampant in areas in which the original issue has been clouded by time, or the lack of any meaningful opportunity to learn from the originators. Traditions lapse, old people die, and are replaced by youngsters no longer vested in the old ways. The search for karud is not as hampered as it might be, as there remain living exemplars of the originating culture, although language changes over time, both in vocabulary and pronunciation, and in the changes in the object or issue. Still, it cannot be denied that in this field, as in so many others, words and ideas have been taken out of context, and have formed a sort of meta-language, filled with descriptive terms unrecognisable by those who originated the object under study. Insofar as in most cases, language does not alter function nor reality, but merely attempts to communicate information, unless and until proper correlations can be discovered and put into use, we will continue to find ourselves enmeshed in the inaccuracies introduced by those who came before, who often lacked to information that was developed subsequent to their original research. It should definitely be noted that in many cases this subsequent information would not exist at all, had they not ventured into the unknown. All the above merely serves as a long-winded replacement for a simple concept, which I can not claim as my own; "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet".

20th August 2017, 06:54 AM	#8
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,763	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIYS9EQWkXg

20th August 2017, 07:48 AM	#10
Kubur Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 2,145	Hi, As Jim said, it's an old debate not only for the karud. I remember the kattara story... Ariel's explanation or demonstration is brilliant and clear. I think no one can deny or contest that. To me the whole thing can be just a footnote. Two or three lines just to explain that Karud is a recent "European" invention with all the references mentionned by Ariel. Now should we use karud or not? I really don't know. It's healthy to be open to changes. If something is wrong, why not to say it and to move forward. But then we will have a problem with terminology as Estrech said. Europeans spent the last three hundred years to write Encyclopaedia and dictionnaries. If we look at regional terminology and local linguistic we will end with something strange. What you will do with the khanjar and kindjal, should we call them only khanjar or only kindjal or simply daggers? kaskara, nimcha.... same story should we call them simply saifs or just swords? What about a pala? I know what a pala is, but I also know that it's a Greek word and probably all the pala were called kilij by the Ottomans. The same with Moukhala and others... Do you know that most of koummiyas were called khanjers? To me it's an endless and useless debate, you probably noticed that I normaly don't participate to these debates. So keep our vocabulary but just explain why and how to use it...