Any difference between 9mm Luger/9mm Parabellum?

[Blackhawk]

Certainly you would get an exemplary mark were this an academic exercise, and I would feel bad about my mocking behavior if it was. But we're talking about a trademark -- not a word -- of indeterminate origin.

Maybe Luger thought it up, but maybe a licensee did. "Luger" was trademarked to apply to the cartridge, and personalizing products was, and still is, very common. Did DWM exist or license the product before 1904? Perhaps Luger had nothing to do with "Parabellum" before DWM showed up.

The fact that two German sources have corroborated that fact, as well as every single book on cartridges I've found at the library, suggests that everyone else around the world seems very thoroughly convinced that Parabellum comes from "Si vis pacem para bellum".

Hyperbole lives! Maybe some -- even a majority -- of those few who've studied it are convinced. But there are still those who are convinced that it's just a trademark....


Carpe linguini!

[Foxy]

I never thought that a question on the dimensions of a case lip would turn into a 50 post thread on Latin.

[Blackhawk]

My flabber is all gasted about it too!

[Skorzeny]

Another example of why is forum is so high quality...

Skorzeny

[CaesarI]

I'll amend the previous hyperbolic statement.

Everyone else around the world, who have studied the matter, seem very thoroughly convinced that it Parabellum comes from "Si vis pacem para bellum". This "maybe some even a majority" nonsense doesn't stand up. You've provided me with no sources to support an alternative explanation of "Parabellum" none, not one. You've got no legs to stand on. All you can do is criticize other people who've gone out of their way to preserve the rich tradition of the names of firearms and their cartridges.

Maybe they named the .38 S&W Special the .38 S&W Special just because they liked .38 better than .357 how can we know what they were thinking, it's just a trademark and not a name. So let's forget the colorful history. Obviously since it's a trademark it can't have a history behind it. Obviously we should listen to someone who speaks no German, knows no German history, knows no Latin, and can't bother to do any research.

As far as "before DWM showed up" Luger worked for DWM while he was designing the Pistole Parabellum. DWM therefore, existed before the pistol, and both Parabellum cartridges. If you examine the earlier posts, Parabellum their cable address as well.

Trademarks have origins, and, despite legal meaning, are in fact "words" they may be proper nouns, but they are words nonetheless, and all words have origins. Kodak, apparently, has origins (according to yourself). Though you've given us no sources to support your claim. It is entirely possible that the Germans sources I've sited have more direct evidence that "Si vis pacem para bellum" was the source. Since these are all published sources, it makes sense to presume they'd have researched the matter and would not have simply printed it because it sounded nice. While integrity in journalism may be dying out, people like myself will try their damnedest to ensure that it does not by keeping published sources on their toes, and always questioning their sources.

While you seem to be trying to do precisely that you're apparently, not very familiar with the rules.

1. I question a newspapers sources for a fact.
2. They provide the source.
3. I then examine that source, if I question that I am given that source as well, which I must then find.
4. I find a review discrediting this final source.
5. I present the evidence to the newspaper who then make the necessary correction (presuming of course they are an honest newspaper).

When etymologists go about examining the origins of modern words they can sometimes run into words that have multiple possible roots. They must then, based on available information, choose which is most likely to be the source, often times this relatively easy, other times it is a calculated guess.

All available data STRONGLY indicates the origins are as I've already stated. You've presented no sources to support your interpretation. Merriam-Webster's source for an English prefix has no bearing on German's be they Georg Luger, or some other German (I note that while the source may NOT be German, I think most will concede the odds are pretty good he/she was). That being the case you've got nothing.

In short, while this has allowed me to gain more knowledge about the 9mm Parabellum than I ever thought necessary, the burden of proof has always rested in your court, and not in mine, since the accepted view is my view. You need sources in order to make claims to the contrary. Since you are unable, or unwilling to provide any sources... this little debate is over.

-Morgan

[CaesarI]

One of the interesting documents I found on my fabulous search...

http://www.user.dccnet.com/welcomewo...ait/cliche.htm

This fellow claims that preparing for war does not lead to peace, and claims moreover to have scientific evidence of it as well.
I suggest those looking to hunt for logical flaws direct their energy here.

******************************
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 23:02:03 -0800
From: Mike Wallace [email protected]

"Qui desiderat pacem, bellum praeparat; nemo provocare ne offendere audet quem intelliget superiorem esse pugnaturem"

(Whosoever desires peace prepares for war; no one provokes, nor dares to offend, those who they know know to be superior in battle)

From this maxim of the 4th century Roman general Vegetius Flavius Maximus was born an enduring cliche, perhaps the most influential Big Lie of the departing century. On Friday, speaking to an audience of Winnipeg high school students and antiwar protestors, Prime Minister Chretien trotted it out once again.

Old V.F. was a lousy general; the Germans usually beat him unless he hired them as mercenaries. And what has become known as his "para bellum principle" has been proven completely WRONG by scientific, empirical, very academically respectable research.

Twenty years ago I first published a study which examined hundreds of conflicts between states. I found that those conflicts preceded by an arms buildup almost always (87%) escalated to all-out war; those NOT preceded by an arms race seldom did (11%). Since my paper (Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1979) was published right at the beginning of Reagan's campaign, American academic Cold Warriors turned attacking my findings into a minor cottage industry. Despite this, my work won me an academic prize, and, much more important, my results have been strongly confirmed by subsequent studies. In the next issue of the Journal of Peace Research, a young professor from Vanderbilt not only confirms my conclusions with her own data and statistics, but states that had I used different methods, my refutation of "para bellum" would have been even stronger!

Now this is all very nice for the academic ego, but of course almost everyone reading this will have already come to this same conclusion intuitively. But now, when someone repeats the old cliche, you can do more than say: "that's b.s." You can say, "that's b.s., AND THERE IS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT IS B.S.!"

I will supply on request all necessary detailed academic references for the scholar-squirrels. In the meantime, keep reminding everyone in every medium you can access: MILITARY BUILDUPS DON'T STOP WARS, THEY START THEM. And, to end with some more Latin, "non illegitime carborundum" (don't let the bastards wear you down).

Pax vobiscum.


Michael D. Wallace
Department of Political Science
University of British Columbia
phone604)822-4550, fax:822-5540

****************************

Pax vobiscum = peace be with you.

I just love it when people analyze historical events as complicated as wars and boil them down to pretty little numbers.

It is of course IMPOSSIBLE that those nations that have arms races HAVE arms races because they are more committed to war, or because they are starting at approximately equal military levels.

Si vis pacem para bellum... generally requires that those who prepare for war do so well in advance of the war. When was the last time you saw Tonga (small island in the pacific the crown prince is a nice guy, plays tennis) try and attack the United States?

-Morgan

[Skorzeny]

I've noticed this trend before - of equating correlations or coincidence with causality.

Another example: "high rate of gun possession increases the rate of accidental gun deaths." Perhaps true enough, but this correlations is often used to "demonstrate" that "high rate of gun possession increases the rate of accidental deaths."

That's like "proving" that a high rate of car ownership increases the rate of car-related accidental deaths and then implying, therefore, that a high rate of car ownership increases accidental deaths, period.

Skorzeny

[Blackhawk]

this little debate is over

It never has been a debate. This isn't a debate board. It's a discussion board. I guess I should have known based on some of the behavior that such a simple fact was not comprehended by all the participants!

A debate is when an advocate of a particular position is obligated to persuade and convince others to subscribe to that position. A discussion is when all parties are open to other points of view.

Notwithstanding any of the preceding posts, Parabellum is a trademark, Luger is a trademark and a name, para and bellum are words, both qualifying for inclusion is standard dictionaries, and you've been promoting parabellem as something it's not, i.e., a word in the dictionary sense.

The discussion you thought was a debate is, indeed, concluded.

Carpe linguini!

[MasterBlaster]

Edited due to poster's stupidity, dyslexia, partial blindness and anal leackage. (See below.)

To read the original, hack into the TFL site and....

Just kidding, guys! (Don't kick me out. It wasn't me.)

[Skorzeny]

MasterBlaster:

Caesarl's conclusions remind me of another saying. "There are lies, damnable lies and statistics." I have no doubt that his conclusion won him laurels from the academic community which is overwhelmingly leftist, pacifistic and anti-military. But anytime anyone claims to have "scientifically" proven/disproven a maxim, take it with a large grain of salt. Stats can lie. Especially when one wants them to.

Huh? Did you not read what CaesarI wrote?

I suggest those looking to hunt for logical flaws direct their energy here.... I just love it when people analyze historical events as complicated as wars and boil them down to pretty little numbers.

I think that he was alerting us about the logical flaws of that particular article, which also claims that Vegetius was wrong. I get the feeling that you thought CaesarI either wrote, or agreed with, the article.

Skorzeny

[CaesarI]

People don't usually quote themselves. And you might have noticed the author's name was not Morgan. Also note my statement: This fellow claims.

Doing some more quoting:
Trademark:
"a device (as a word) pointing distinctly to the origin or ownership of merchandise to which it is applied and legally reserved to the exclusive use of the owner as maker or seller"
once again using the famous Merriam Webster dictionary.

The fact that it is a trademark does not preclude it having origins. Finding these origins has been the main thrust of this discussion, even though not the original one...

It is a debate when two people in a discussion disagree and try and convince one another of their conclusions. If you're not intent on convincing anyone of your conclusions...

-Morgan (not Michael D. Wallace)

[MasterBlaster]

Read your post too quickly. Damn speed-reading class! I want my money back!

My bad.

Corrective measures taken.

Now on to more pressing matters. Does anyone know where the term "Portobella mushrooms" originated?