Re: ficken

Piotr Gasiorowski schrieb:

> Most words with prefixes occur also without them. <praepu:tium>
> contained a bound morpheme which, however, made perfect sense. If the
> foreskin constitutes the front (prae-) of the -pu:tium, What can this
> -pu:tium be? Let me think...

it is easy, let me tell youl. It is the skin:-))

>
> By the way, what about Mod.Gk. poútsa (or -os) 'dick'. Is that also from
> The Romanian Substrate? ;)

no, but from modern Romanian. Aromanian.

> This is somewhat Ruhlenian. The core meanings of Alb. puth- are 'kiss,
> caress, touch with the mouth', etc. (I assume meanings like 'collate,
> dovetail' are figurative), and the reciprocal sense 'to make sex' may be
> a euphemism of no particular antiquity. How do you know it fits into
> your "time frame", especially in the absence of anything directly
> corresponding to the Romanian word? (fem. *puthë 'penis' would fit the
> bill, but where is it?). Demiraj's derivation of <puth> from *bHus-dH-,
> is completely unlikely: it's a safe bet that the word is simply
> sound-imitative and was coined within Albanian.
>
> Piotr

the time frame is ok due ts < c^ but your semantic question here appears
more an argument ad extremis. Latin "putium" is a question for itself
and I won't wonder if it will be a loan from an *putyum

Anyway, please see this thing:
romanian "putsã" is an appelative for a little boyx, or a little girl
too or, for a little thing, meaning so to say "small".
now, take a look at Latin "pu:sus" with the same meaning and tell me
please what you think about.

Alex