--- In email@example.com
, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
I'm the supporter of that ones that link prae-pu:tium with sala-
Weiss try to destroy the above assumption based on:
1. "But morphologically praeputium is a prepositional governing
compound, that is, the foreskin is that which is at the front of the
*pu:t(o)- "penis." "
2. "Now prepositional governing compounds are frequently
characterized in Latin by the addition of the suffix -i- or -iyo- to
the second, governed member of the compound, for example, grex >
egregius, clavus > praeclavium, norma > enormis. Thus the fact that
praeputium ends in -ium is certainly to be attributed to its
membership in the class of prepositional governing compounds"
3. "Finally, since sala-, whatever its ultimate analysis, is
certainly not a preposition, it follows that the -ium of salaputium
cannot be explained by reference to praeputium."
ALL above assertions are false in my opinion
1.a *pu:tium could be a simple -yo- compound formed LONG BEFORE a
construction with prae- has appeared:
He have plenty of such example in Latin like:
Latin o:stium < Latin o:s 'mouth' < PIE *h3oh1-s-o
Latin pretium < PIE *pre-t-yo-
1.b if so, a prepositional compound with a "-ium" NOUN will not
trigger again anything else (like another "-ium" etc..)
1.c If so, sala-, for sure not a preposition (here I agree with
Weiss), whatever its ultimate origin, can well formed compounds with
an -yo- noun
Saying this, all of the Weiss' initial assertions failed : based on
the simple supposition that *pu:tium is an -yo- noun similar with
o:stium : an ancient -yo- word, so its initial formation was not
trigerred by any preposition...
Saying this: I can still remain the supporter of that ones that
linked prae-pu:tium with sala-pu:tium
II. Now Regarding the semantism of *pu:tium I think that:
A composed Y formed as <<prae-X>> has the same nature as X.
Please check by your own the truth of the assertion above.
To apply to our case if "prae-pu:tium" is "a kind of skin" (and it
is: is the "foreskin"), results that *pu:tium is "a kind of skin" too.
This completely change the semantism of the construction because
*pu:tium in this case doesn't denominate 'a kind of penis' (in one
sense or another) BUT really indicate "the penis' skin"
(I don't want to say with this that this was its originary meaning
too, this could be fixed only when we will find the root inside
In Romanian there is a Slang expression "Esti pielea pulii"
=> "You are the skin of the dick" with the meaning "You are
WE can recheck now global semantism of
"salaputium disertum" => "an elloquent NOBODY"
III. I can answer now to Weiss' main concern:
"But these objections, though significant, are hardly conclusive. I
have no doubt that an ingenious supporter of the putus or praeputium
hypothesis could find a way around these obstacles. By far the
greater weakness of both these hypotheses is their total inability to
explain the first two syllables of salaputium"
I will say (only for the argumentation) that the first two syllables
of salaputium ("sa-la-") means 'salt', as Weiss supposed too
So if sala- means really 'salt' in "salaputium" (but I'm not sure
about this): the meaning of "salaputium" is "the salted skin of the
dick" (in Romanian "pielea pulii s&rat&")
And I wonder why the meaning "the salted skin of the dick" has "a
greater weakness" in relation with the "salt purification" proposed
by Weiss? Do you see why? I don't. I would say : in contrary....
Even I cannot say what influence the salt can have in that place...
at least "a salted skin" is a more readable construction than "a
salted dick" and a more reasonable one than a "salt purification"
IV. regarding the ultimate etymology of *pu:tium, I can only say that
being an -yo- compound it could be
*poi(h)-t-yo- (see PIE *oinos > Latin u:nus)
Any help here will be welcome.
P>S> Thanks a lot Piotr for the article.