>I was talking about denominations for babies of animals
>& birds, not bout their flesh, even if the babies are
>"flesh from the flesh of their parents":-))
>Thus, "carne de pui" is a inadequate exampel since is
>not related to this kind of denominations.
It is, since, along with the 1st meaning you insist
upon, there is the 2nd, which you omitted, but which
is of utmost lexical importance: "chicken." But
without "chicken," i.e. "pui," there could be no
... Kentucky Fried Chicken! :^)
(BTW: how come that one calls the chickens onomato-
poetically "pui-pui-pui!" [puj] in RO, and "putt-putt-
putt" throughout the Reich? What's the PIE basis?)
>I guess I forgot one, and this is the pig. For pig too
>there is not used "pui". Did I forgot something else?
This is not quite exactly as you state it. "Pui" can
be used in the sense of "child, cub" and the like
for any animal and for humans ("pui de om"). It depends
on the context (and style). Otherwise, of course that
the pig's "pui" is called "purcel(aS/-uS)" or "godac".
>boboc=sm bud;
boboc not a further development of bob? (bob de
piper, bob de cafea, bob de mazare etc.) I don't know
whether coincidence or not, Hung. bab [bOb] "bean."
>Alex
George