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 "Săgue". Only the diphthong Ă 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
|