A Portugese Question

[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...

[fernando]

Let's see:
1 - XVI-XVII century Portuguese was not so different as a language, but more on the side of orthography, diphthong spellings, using either double letters or accents like the "~", leaving out some of its Galician origins. The more encrypted situation is the intrincate graphic "font" used in the manuscripts and even in early printings. They also used alternative vocables in some cases, but still available in modern dictionaries. I have samples of these situations in various 19 and 20th century editions of the Discoveries period, and also publications on my home town history from the 16th century, with frequent document transcriptions in the original writing manner.
2 - The correct spelling is Sangue, from Latin Sanguis.
( Sang is French, Sangre is Spanish and Sangue is also Italian, but with another pronunciation )
3 - It has two sylabs: San gue. You may either omit the oral sound of the "u", depending on the root word or its several derivations, but you can not abandon its use in writing. By rule, if you want to extend a word ending with consonant "G", with a sufix or a verb time starting with "E", you must use a "U" in between. Both Sangue and this rule were in practise by ( at least ) that period. I spotted this word written in 1594, as "Sãgue". Only the diphthong à alternated to "AN".
4 - Kur and Kuh are not phoneticaly Portuguese . In such a way that is dificult to guess on a Portuguese word that gave out such corruption.
As a sufix or type of extension is even more dificult, as all the available blood (sangue ) word derivations in the dictionaries, be them substantives or adjectives do not refer the direct naming of a weapon specimen, although obviously i see the logic of blood/bleed/bleeder alegories to daggers .
5 - All of the above is no more than an aproach, as it doesn't guarantee that Sangkur is not an actual Portuguese adaptation to Malay or any of the language group.
6 - I ignore the particulars of the weapon in question, but if the subject is about a so called plug bayonet style, introduced in muskets by 1685, when Portuguese influence was already declining, it is hard to beleive that they would stiill bring them over with such an impact that its local reproduction generated a language influenced term to locally name the weapon. I would say that if some weapons exist or existed with Portuguese influenced naming, as certainly in styles, by that side of the world, took place at a prior stage, like 15/16 centuries. Or better said, you do actually have Portuguese influence in Asian and African weapon models ( and probably also names ) being produced until "the other day" ( i have pictures ) but those are a repetition of an influence originated in the earliest period.
But then again, this means nothing, if indeed such corruption existed.
I will keep looking. These themes are nice to get involved with ... if you allow me
fernando

[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?

[fernando]

Wright. Kroncong.
The Fado thing isn't necessarily a tested issue. It was just an introduction to a musical record, in an Indonesian distributor ... plus some other articles and considerations.
The term itself refers the instrument, similar to the "Wawayan" Ukelele, wich in fact is the Portuguese "Cavaquinho". The instrument and melodies were brought to Java by the Portuguese in the 16th century, being practised by the local mixed race Lusophones. The themes and the words were often about sadness and nostalgia ( Saudade, some ex-libris of the Fado ). So i found that introduction convincing. Its development by Eurasians by the late 19th century might have given it another style, though.
fernando