--- In email@example.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.
"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,
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'
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'