From: Piotr Gasiorowski
> 1. Why is a safe bet?Of course it's part of the root.
> Do you know Albanian verbs constructed with -th- ? I didn't.
> If yes, please shows us these verbs
> 2. If -th-, belongs to the root we cannot have other root here butYou're assuming, without any basis, that the word is as old as the
> *puk^- => end this is quit the same root as in English 'fuck'
> This sexual connotations '1. to kiss, 2. to fuck' similar 'toNo, it's you who is enforcing things. Show me one language in which a
> fuck' really enforce the proposed etymology
> 5. The PAlbanian/Dacian? form of puth was *PUTSA, both of us haveI've no idea if it's old enough to count as "Dacian", but I'd accept
> agreed on this...
> Based on 4, you cannot say in any circumstances THAT the PAlbanianNon sequitur on several counts.
> meaning of *PUTSA has nothing to do with the meaning 'to have sex'
> (even today the meaning is there...in Alb. puthem) and if Germanic
> fuck is cognate : the sexual connotation here is above any doubt
> Based on 1-5 : I see, as very probable, that Albanian puth to be
> originated from puk^- and cognate with English fuck
> Albanian 'bardza:' is not there either as 'the known bird' => butBut things are rather different here. There's no possible Latin
> based on this: would you assert that Romanian bardza has nothing to
> do with with Albanian 'bardh&' 'white'? I hope not. [etc.]
> To conclude:Come on, what we actually have is the _middle_ verb <puthem> which may
> Albanian /puth&/ 'penis' is not there either, you are right: but
> Albanian verb puth (pronounced in PAlb *PUTSA 'to kiss, to make sex')
> is here ...and Romanian noun PUTSA 'penis' is here too...
> Sorry, Piotr, but I think I'm right here.I don't doubt you think so, and there's nothing to be sorry about, but I