This bell seems very well made, designed to last a good long while. Given that a wooden ship tends to have a much shorter lifespan than a ship's bell, it seems possible that Muhayideen Baksh commissioned it with the idea that it would be going on a succession of ships, some of which may not be his, he may have had it cast with such to denote that it was his bell, and not the bell of the ship it happened to be on. So his (ship's bell) instead of (his ship)'s bell.

In some languages, it makes sense to add the "bell", otherwise the sentence is incomplete.

In my native Hindi, you would say "X's ship's bell". If you drop the the "bell", it becomes "X's ship". Obviously it's not a ship. And if you drop the "ship", it becomes "X". That would mean the bell's name is "X". So the only complete, logical sentence has to be "X's ship's bell".

I suppose it could be that in that language the ship bell and temple bell would have two different names, but obviously that nuance is lost when translated into English.

It's like in English you have fingers and toes, and obviously fingers are not toes, and toes are not fingers. But for example in Polish, they are both called the same thing, so you need to specify which "fingers" you mean - so you could have a sentence that says "foot fingers", which when translated into English could end up being "foot toes" - obviously to an English speaker it makes no sense, since toes are only on a foot, so saying foot toes is pointless. But it makes perfect sense in Polish, and yet this nuance is lost here.

Yes, good point. Sort of the same is true in Hindi. I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone) that there are separate words for fingers and toes in Hindi - the word ung(a)li [1] is used for both, IIRC - and they may add the Hindi word for foot if they are referring to toes rather than fingers.

Just checked it in Google Translate:

finger - उंगली toe - पैर की अंगुली (finger of foot)

though you can see that they use two different spellings for ungali there - the latter one reads as anguli.

I used to think that the former was the right spelling, but on seeing the above now, remembered the story of Angulimala and Buddha, so maybe both are correct spellings:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angulimala

I think the inscription's aim might have been to stress that this is ship's bell as opposed to a Temple's bell, etc. I am a Native tamil speaker and there are quite a few "bell" words in Tamil

I think it is not too odd to inscribe "Captain's iPhone" on an iPhone instead of just "Captain's." Can't see why bell would be different.

Or on a log.

You're overthinking it. It's not english, and the conventions/forms of the language don't necessarily follow english expectations.

Anecdotal reason: I'm Indian, and we have some high quality (and possibly expensive) utensils that have been passed down for a couple of generations. They have all have my grandad's name etched on them somewhere, as a means of identification.

That's not the issue. They're asking why the word "bell" is on there, not the person's name. The person's name makes perfect sense, at least to us English speakers. The "bell" part doesn't; it would be look your expensive utensils each having inscribed on them, "Ravi's fork" or "Ravi's spoon". You can look at it and tell it's a fork or spoon, so why would you write that piece of obvious information on there?

I think OP was talking about the 'bell' inscription rather than the person's name. It seems weird to write bell on a bell because you can tell it's a bell just by looking at it

A lot of other comments already, and one or more may be similar, but will add mine anyway:

>I like language, and this inscription makes me wonder. Why write on a bell that it's a bell? I'd be less surprised if the bell had said "Muhayideen Baksh’s ship".

I think it may mean "the bell from that particular ship" to distinguish it from any other ship's bell or any other bell.

Edit: Could be, in case of theft or loss of the bell (would make it easier to find and restore to the ship). Though of course, someone could possibly rub that writing off with a file or other tool.

I'm guessing that the construction and workmanship of the bell made it an item of adornment for the ship. Inscribing a name on it would make sense if it were so valuable.

I think you misunderstood my point - I don't wonder about the entire inscription, but the word "bell". Edited my comment to clarify.

Sometimes in other languages, the way that you say something is different. I mean, in the english language and culture I agree your point has some sense but in old Tamil it may need to be described that way because of the language structure. The translation may not be perfect either as sometimes a concept that is expressed in one language just has no equivalent in another.

edit: native Tamil speaker also contributing

  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13947061

I think to soo.

I was on a trip to Malaysia recently and met many native Chinese speakers who reply "Can" when you ask them something like "Can you meet me at 5 tomorrow?". I asked him why they don't say "Yes" and he said that in Chinese, that would sound really silly.

I imagine it's similar to writing "Sword of so and so" on a weapon rather than just writing ones name. In some languages, it's more... regal.

I think it's more accurate that the Chinese speakers are saying "I can" (可以). It's clearly an answer in the affirmative. If you wanted a more explicit response, you could say "I will" (我会 or 会的).

Come to Singapore - there's plenty of native English speakers here who will use "can" in the same sense!

Oh yes. That's where I first heard it. I don't know if I'm misremembering but I think they said things like "can can" to emphasise the positive response and "no can" to indicate a negative.

Ha, I remember hearing that too in KL long ago. Though I took it to be a shorter form of "I can". La is another sound they add on to the ends of sentences, a sort of exclamation, I think it is.

Maybe, the bell was taken as a trophy and the inscription was done to identify from whom it was taken.

Probably was done so people wouldn't mistake its purpose and use it as a cooking pot, or something.