Khyber, pesh, choora, or kard?

Jim McDougall · 30th November 2017, 05:14 PM

Really guys, I think the absence of mod intervention is mostly patient abstinence hoping you guys who seem at odds can maturely resolve these contentions.
I saw this and could only think of that 60s song, "The Name Game" with all the banana fana stuff, which pretty much characterizes these silly arguments about terms.
Actually we have gone nearly 5 or 6 months without the 'karud' theme.

Actually in my opinion much of the researched and supported perspectives on these terms used for the spectrum of weapons in these regions has been interesting and helpful, and much of it by those of you here at odds.
The reality is that these conundrums in terminology are resultant of the high volatility and dynamic intertribal flux in these areas, factor in cultural diffusion and influences. There are actually a number of 'right' answers, with the dreaded axiom, 'it depends' ,at the fore.

In ethnographic circumstances all of you are well aware of the kinds of variations and hybrids which result in these weapons and the same influences coupled with the semantics, colloquial terms, transliterations and other linguistic dilemmas render accurate classification pretty chaotic.

I think a brief visit to our search feature and archived threads would give a pretty good overview of the material already discussed, and help those seriously interested in arriving at their own conclusions . I know I use it often, pretty much faithfully actually, and never cease learning from the contributions you guys and others have entered.

As for Wikipedia, it is but one online source, and serves as a benchmark to pursue further research either online or in published references. It is not intended as a primary source, but initial research and overview reference.
Researchers use it often in that manner, as I know I do. Actually there are far more using it than will admit it, due to the unfortunate derision often unwarranted criticism often directed toward its use.

As most authors know, nothing written and published is the final word or conclusive answer to most questions, and most encourage further study and evidence to be presented. It is about fact finding and supported rebuttal, as well as courteous exchange of ideas whether opposed or in support.

I'm just sayin'

Jim

30th November 2017, 05:14 PM	#16
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,193	Really guys, I think the absence of mod intervention is mostly patient abstinence hoping you guys who seem at odds can maturely resolve these contentions. I saw this and could only think of that 60s song, "The Name Game" with all the banana fana stuff, which pretty much characterizes these silly arguments about terms. Actually we have gone nearly 5 or 6 months without the 'karud' theme. Actually in my opinion much of the researched and supported perspectives on these terms used for the spectrum of weapons in these regions has been interesting and helpful, and much of it by those of you here at odds. The reality is that these conundrums in terminology are resultant of the high volatility and dynamic intertribal flux in these areas, factor in cultural diffusion and influences. There are actually a number of 'right' answers, with the dreaded axiom, 'it depends' ,at the fore. In ethnographic circumstances all of you are well aware of the kinds of variations and hybrids which result in these weapons and the same influences coupled with the semantics, colloquial terms, transliterations and other linguistic dilemmas render accurate classification pretty chaotic. I think a brief visit to our search feature and archived threads would give a pretty good overview of the material already discussed, and help those seriously interested in arriving at their own conclusions . I know I use it often, pretty much faithfully actually, and never cease learning from the contributions you guys and others have entered. As for Wikipedia, it is but one online source, and serves as a benchmark to pursue further research either online or in published references. It is not intended as a primary source, but initial research and overview reference. Researchers use it often in that manner, as I know I do. Actually there are far more using it than will admit it, due to the unfortunate derision often unwarranted criticism often directed toward its use. As most authors know, nothing written and published is the final word or conclusive answer to most questions, and most encourage further study and evidence to be presented. It is about fact finding and supported rebuttal, as well as courteous exchange of ideas whether opposed or in support. I'm just sayin' Jim