Karud: the weapon that did not exist:-)

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.

20th August 2017, 06:54 AM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIYS9EQWkXg

20th August 2017, 07:48 AM	#3
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...