--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> 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.
> Piotr
>
Piotr,
"Kissing, as an expression of affection or love, is unknown among many
races, and in the history of mankind seems to be a late substitute for
the more primitive rubbing of noses, sniffing, and licking." [Buck,
p.1113]
I quotes this from the discussion on the etymology of English kiss
but is quite the same discussion
(please see it at
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=kiss)
So this *puk^- (from originally 'to punch, to sting' etc...) has
described, initially, different contacts with sexual connotations ...
maybe also (why not?) all of them, in one term.
I think that this was the original meaning of 'the sexual connotations'
of *puk^-
This means also that the contacts, at that time, (including what we
could consider today as 'kisses') weren't quite 'pure soft contacts'
From there, I don't see any issue that puk^- became in time either 'to
fuck' or 'to kiss'
Marius