Сlassification of Indian swords.

[Nihl]

Originally Posted by ariel

Yes, AFAIK these terms refer to blades only, although both of us are not sure:-(
Can somebody clarify it?

While I know I've definitely heard these terms before, I can't pinpoint quite where? Admittedly, my collection of "the classics" is severely lacking, but looking through the books that I do have (Elgood and Stone and the like) I can't find any glossary entries for these terms. As such, I too have to ask: can anyone clarify what the origin of these terms are (or where they were first recorded)?

In regards to their use, assuming they are legitimate and not mistranslated or anything, I agree with Rumpel's suggestion of "arapusta tulwar". In other words, I believe arapusta/aradam should be used as adjectives, not standalone terms. "Arapusta tulwar" can basically translate to "serrated sword" in the generic sense, but then something like "aradam khanda" or "arapusta firangi" can be used for specific examples as they appear. Using the more common word/sword type (tulwar) along with a more esoteric word should also make the term more approachable for beginners IMO, so they can know that the sword being referred to is a subtype, and not a separate specialized type of sword. Indeed, to my knowledge, more often than not these serrated blades are demonstrations of an artisan's skill rather than intended for battlefield use, which makes them a subtype to me.