Re: ficken

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 51742
Date: 2008-01-21

On 2008-01-21 22:39, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> 1. Why is a safe bet?
> Do you know Albanian verbs constructed with -th- ? I didn't.
> If yes, please shows us these verbs

Of course it's part of the root.

> 2. If -th-, belongs to the root we cannot have other root here but
> *puk^- => end this is quit the same root as in English 'fuck'

You're assuming, without any basis, that the word is as old as the
hills. If it goes back to Common Albanian, it was something like *puts-
at that time. It's onomatopoeic enough for my taste, just like Eng. buss
or Italian bacio.

> This sexual connotations '1. to kiss, 2. to fuck' similar 'to
> fuck' really enforce the proposed etymology

No, it's you who is enforcing things. Show me one language in which a
verb referring to copulation evolved semantically into 'kiss'. The
opposite (i.e. the euphemistic use of "innocent" vocabulary) is
commonplace -- see below.

> 5. The PAlbanian/Dacian? form of puth was *PUTSA, both of us have
> agreed on this...

I've no idea if it's old enough to count as "Dacian", but I'd accept
*puts- as the original verb stem.

> Based on 4, you cannot say in any circumstances THAT the PAlbanian
> meaning of *PUTSA has nothing to do with the meaning 'to have sex'
> (even today the meaning is 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

Non sequitur on several counts.

> Albanian 'bardza:' is not there either as 'the known bird' => but
> based on this: would you assert that Romanian bardza has nothing to
> do with with Albanian 'bardh&' 'white'? I hope not. [etc.]

But things are rather different here. There's no possible Latin
prototype for the Romanian word, and the Albanian one is the best match

Note that we still can't be 100% sure that they have anything in common
with each other. Science is not about absolute certainty but about
hypotheses that best fit the available evidence. I accept this
particular connection as a plausible hypothesis because there is at
present no other hypothesis that could be preferred.

But even formal AND semantic similarity may turn out to be accidental.
Here's a cautionary example: if the history of <cook> and <cookie> were
not as well-documented as it is, even serious etymologists would
probably take their cognacy for granted. As it happens, they are unrelated.

> To conclude:
> 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...

Come on, what we actually have is the _middle_ verb <puthem> which may
mean 'make love' (when used of a couple engaged in it). It doesn't even
convey any of the _transitive_ meanings of English <fuck>, and its
grammatical category emphasises _reciprocal_ action.

It's easy to understand how "they are kissing (each other)" may serve as
a euphemism for a more advanced stage of lovemaking (while intransitive
'kiss', as in "he kissed her" is less likely to be so used), but how do
you propose to explain the fact that a verb allegedly meaning 'to fuck'
came to mean 'kiss' except in the middle voice?

> 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
still don't see a defensible case here.