Re: ficken

alexandru_mg3 schrieb:

> Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> > Is it invented? It could easily have been abstracted from
> > <prae-pu:tium>. It's already there, so there's no need to invoke a
> > substratal word.

cf. Meyer-Lübke which wants to see a " rom. "*pu:tium" as backwards
derivate to obtain a "mänliches Glied" ?( was ML thinking at Romanian
word as he tried this explanation?)
Against of the assumtion of Meyer-Lübke see Goldberger which mentions
"dass aber dieses *pu:tium schon in Vlt. bestanden hat is UNWAHRSCHEINLICH.

>
> Regarding the sematism of the abstraction it could work: but why "pre-"
> was lost? This is difficult to explain: I don't remember any Latin word
> in Romanian that lost his Latin prefix

neither me but it will be nice to see some if someone knows them. Yet,
I remember I have trouble in finding at all prefixed Latin words in
Romanian. So far I remember, one of the (my) conclusions was that there
are Latin/Latinoid "roots" but the derivates of the root are other/made
with other prefixes/sufixes as they are in Latin. That is, the derivates
are made in Romanian directly.

>
> > It would only make sense if you had some damn good
> > independent evidence that such *puk^ah2 really existed.
> >
> > Piotr
>
> I think that I have this evidence:
> ==================================
> Is Albanian : puth 'to kiss, (reflx.III) to make sex' < PAb *putsa <
> PIE *puk^-o

I have the question regarding the vocalism here not the one of the
semantism since the meaning is in the same areal.. What about the "u"
in Albanian? I should have expected "y" here, not the "u". Or I
forget something in the Albanian vocalism.

Alex