A Portugese Question

[fernando]

That is a very long shot.
Sangue is indeed Portuguese for blood, a Latin based term, and the pattern one ever used. But what made you think Sangkur is a Portuguese influenced term ? Would then the "Kur" or "Kuh" be a malay sufix or the like ? I dont see it fitting on the Portuguese style, even if old or corrupted, i would advance. However checking the Web on the Malay sources it seems like Sangkur, malay for dagger or the like ( bayonet is later galicism ) is a "noun", a propper name for the object, and apparently not derived from a "borrowed
or "composed" term.
Have you some starting track on a different direction ? If so please tell, and i will double check on the Portuguese corruption possibility.
... if nobody more schooled on the subject pops out.
fernando

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for your response, Fernando.

Indonesian, which is a form of Malay, is my second language, and I can also handle Javanese passably.

"Sang" is not a root word in either Malay or Javanese. Certainly there are words in both languages that use "sang" as a part of the word; "sang" by itself is an honorific; "kur" and "kuh" are neither suffixes nor prefixes in either language.

Since the Portugese were the first Europeans into the region, it is possible that Javanese first encountered bayonets in the hands of Portugese people.

The Indonesian and Javanese words "sangkur" and "sangkuh" both mean "bayonet".

Sangkur, sangkuh, or any similar word does not occur in Old Javanese, which means it has been added to the Javanese language since about 1600.

In Portugese "sang" is a root word that is used to generate other words.This root word denotes some association with blood.

Bayonets by their very nature draw blood.

Yes, certainly I am drawing a long bow, and at the moment I am not of the opinion that "sangkuh" is Portugese generated , however logic seems to indicate that it could be a possibility, and without checking, we will never know.

If you have access to sources that will provide knowledge of 16th-17th century Portugese language usage, I would appreciate it if you could do a little checking. If you cannot do this fairly easily, don`t worry about it, I`ll go another route.

Incidentally, I`m not looking for corruption of a Portugese word, by Portugese, but rather a word that was in current usage in 16th-17th century Portugese, that could form the basis for a Javanese or Malay corruption.

[Rick]

Possibly we might look at the phonetic pronunciation .
If in the Portuguese pronunciation it is one syllable 'sang' there may be an argument for no relation; if on the other hand if the pronunciation is two syllables then there is good argument for the Portuguese root .

[RSWORD]

Of possibly interesting correlation is that in India there is a type of bayonet referred to as Sangin.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes, this is true.

There is also the sang, a lance; the sanger, a spear; the sangu, a spear. These all from India, and an Indian connection was suggested earlier.

The Iban have a spear called a sangkoh.

However, in Italy one of the names for the cinquedea is "sangdede".

Certainly we cannot rule out some sort of Indian connection, but bearing in mind that this particular weapon is associated with firearms, it falls within a different period of influence within Jawa than those earlier weapons which can clearly be associated with contact from the sub-continent.

This question of the name is still open, and one possibility, although admittedly remote, is a Portugese connection.

[A. G. Maisey]

On the other hand---------

let`s say we`d really like this sangkuh thing to get its name from an Indian source.

Its a bayonet, bayonets come with firearms, direct Indian influence in Jawa was gone long before firearms with bayonets were on the scene.

However-----------

did the Dutch employ Indian mercenaries?

Yes? No?

If so, when?

What were they armed with?

Did those firearms have triangular bayonets?

If not the Dutch, how about the British?

The British had control of Jawa during the first quarter of the 19th century.

Did the British have Indian troops?

Seems reasonable to expect that they might have had.

If so, what were they armed with?

The British really did a number on the Sultan of Jogja. If you like stories of British superiority as a colonial power, you`ll love the story of the taking of Jogja.

But anyway---there they were, right in the heart of Jawa. If they had Indian troops with them ---well, you`ve seen the movies.

And sangkuh is a Javanese word, not Sundanese.

I do not have time right now to do the necessary digging to answer these questions, but a little time spent answering these questions might give a logical confirmation to an Indian source.

I`m sure there`s some fun there for somebody.

[Marc]

Just as an historical note:

Bayonets were first developed at the very end of the 16th c. - beginning of 17th c., and, initially, as hunting implements, with the design known as "plug bayonets. They featured a handle that fitted into the firearm muzzle and a wide, double-edged, spear-like blade. See:



On the other hand, the "socket bayonet" is a late 17th. c. French invention (1670's, quoting from memory), and this is the one equipped (well, with a lot of variations) with what I understand is the kind of blade that originated this debate. For example:




I thought it might be a somewhat relevant information...

[Henk]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

did the Dutch employ Indian mercenaries?
Did those firearms have triangular bayonets?

If not the Dutch, how about the British?

The British had control of Jawa during the first quarter of the 19th century.

Did the British have Indian troops?

Seems reasonable to expect that they might have had.

If so, what were they armed with?

The British really did a number on the Sultan of Jogja. If you like stories of British superiority as a colonial power, you`ll love the story of the taking of Jogja.

But anyway---there they were, right in the heart of Jawa. If they had Indian troops with them ---well, you`ve seen the movies.

And sangkuh is a Javanese word, not Sundanese.

I do not have time right now to do the necessary digging to answer these questions, but a little time spent answering these questions might give a logical confirmation to an Indian source.

As far as I know the dutch didn't employ Indian mercenaries. The oldest bayonets from 1800 where triangular. I found it in the book "Antieke Vuurwapens by Ir. R.T.W. Kempers" The later bayonets of Hembrug where flat, more the dagger or short sword type.

I think it is more likely that the British did have Indian troops. The Ghurka regiments are an example of that. Maybe that one of the forum members with knowledge of the british army can tell us more?