Hi all! Just wanted to add a few thoughts here and clarify what I can.
First of all, language and name game-wise, I feel like it would be helpful for a few people to elucidate how the term "dhop" is pronounced. In marathi the word is written as "धोप", which is spelled धो - dho, with the "o" being pronounced the same way as the o in "own", and प - p. To explain it a slightly different way, the sword "dhop" is pronounced the same way the english slang word "dope" is. Thus, alternative transliterations of "धोप" as either "dhup" or "dhoop" would be misleading, as the "official" word contains no vowel sounds that could be properly aligned with either u or oo-based sounds.
As to the veracity of this term as one used to describe a basket hilt with some form of vaguely european-in-style blade, we have to look no further than the "indian side" of youtube to find examples of natives using the term in the modern day. Here's
one example of a clip from a tv special about Marathi weapons, where they pronounce the term at the 0:40 mark, and here's
another example from a Sikh youtuber talking about the sword type, specifically saying the term at around 0:44.
In my opinion, while "firangi" is a legitimate term, it's a bit too vague to use these days when talking about indian swords. Sure, there are plenty of swords with "firangi blades" out there, but since we now know that copies of European blades were paired with hilts just as often as authentic ones, it makes no sense to rely on "firangi" as a sword type when the swords described, from a glance, have a 50/50 chance of actually being accurate to the term. Meanwhile, the term "dhop" makes no such distinction, and instead is defined (from what I can tell) as just a basket-hilted sword with some kind of long and often - but not always - fullered blade. The term "asa shamshir" indeed is more northern in origin, but I would say it's an accurate term to describe any straight-bladed, basket-hilted "firangi". In my mind, firangi is a good way of marking an indian sword as having a trade blade (i.e. saying "this is a firangi-bladed pata, tulwar, etc"), when used as a descriptor/shorthand that would indeed signify that that sword has a blade of european origin, but I think it is too vague of a term to use as a standalone type of sword. Also worth noting that, unfortunately, we don't really know what the more southern Tamil/Malayali/Kannadiga terms for these types of swords would be, despite the fact that we do know 100% that these types of swords were made & used in those areas (of course we do know the term for "sword" in each of these languages, but what I'm curious about is just *if* they used a different, distinct word).
In terms of what to call a "standard" tulwar-hilted sword with some kind of atypical fullered blade, which is what Stu actually started this thread on, I think it's important to remember that the blades used on indian swords were really quite unusually diverse, relative to the rest of the world. Indeed, compared to the more strict ways of mounting sword blades in say, europe, the only qualification a blade needed in india to be stuck on a hilt was that it's tang was the right size (insofar as it could fit inside the hilt)! After that (as we all know), the blades would just be glued in, with no fuss about handle scales, pommel caps, etc "fitting" on the sword. Of course, for hilts that required rivets (or were later modified with them), that's a whole nother issue involving messing with the blade itself. My point to all this is (and I thank those reading that have stuck up with my ramblings), that due to how incredibly diverse the blades on indian swords could be, owing further to how fundamentally non-preferential the hilts of most indian swords were (within reason), it is ultimately IMO rather silly to draw lines in what is really a spectrum or continuum of swords that can all have relatively quite different blade shapes and sizes from one another. In my opinion, it is better to arrange sword forms via the manner of use and hilt shape than strictly the blade shape. This given that, for example, we know via traditional indian swordsmanship that most straight-bladed tulwars weren't thrusted with, and thus their use was ultimately interchangeable with the more common saber-bladed tulwar form. Granted, truth be told
most indian swords were used in the same manner (of chopping/slashing/cutting/etc), so I suppose my system isn't really 100% foolproof.
IMO though, Stu's tulwar is indeed a
tulwar, just a tulwar with a straight blade. Or, if we really need to be pedantic/super descriptive, it's a straight-bladed tulwar with three fullers arranged in a manner suspiciously similar to that of a takouba
.