--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2008-01-21 23:51, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > 'Your' supposed *pu:tium will be the SINGLE EXCEPTION:
> >
> > =========================================
> > Latin *pu:tium > Rom. FEMININ put,&
> > =========================================
>
> Not so quickly. <prae-pu:tium> is a prepositional governing
compound.
> The final *-io- characterises such compounds, but not their members
in
> isolation. Cf.
>
> <cla:vus> (m.) 'purple stripe on the tunica' --> <prae-clav-ium>
(n.)
> 'the part of the tunica before the stripe',
>
> <grex> (f.) 'flock, herd' --> <e:-greg-ius> (adj.) 'chosen from a
great
> number, distinguished',
>
> <furnus> 'oven' --> <prae-furnium> 'the opening of a furnace'.
>
> <prae-pu:tium> PRESUPPOSES some (presumably slangy) Latin word of
the
> form <pu:t-X> and with the likely meaning 'penis'. We have no idea
what
> the actual stem-forming element was or what gender it marked,
although
> the existence of the word is GUARANTEED by the existence of
> <praepu:tium>. In fact, it may well have been something like
*pu:tia.
>
> Piotr
>
1. At least, you agree now that :
1) putsa is not a later abstraction of praepu:tium
2) putsa is not from praepu:tium with a lost of the initial prae-
3) putsa is not from *pu:tium because this word never existed
2. Next you propose now *put-X:
Objections:
1) The existence of that word *put-X SOMETIMES IN THE PAST IS
GUARANTEED => BUT THIS DOESN'T GUARANTEE AT ALL that this word STILL
EXISTED in LATE Romance Times
I can quote you: with some PIE derived words but with no direct
attested PIE root for that words etc...(that of course existed once,
but farway in the past in relation with that derived words)
2) And why *put-ia ? why not *put-a? or *putus? etc...Only to
arrive to well derive putsa ?
So you contruct a Latin *put-ia in -ia based ONLY on the Roma
nian Form? This is "unusual", even for the PIE reconstruction, not to
talk in the case of the well attested LATIN Language
In addition, what meaning this supposed suffix -ia could have
here for the 'penis' word?
So finally to resume you:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You propose NOW a NEW LATIN WORD : the NON-ATTESTED Latin *putia as
the source of Romanian putsa?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I need to ask you:
------------------
Wouldn't be better, to link Romanian PUTSA 'penis' (< *puk^-eh2)
1) with the PAlbanian PUTSA 'to kiss, to have sex' (Attested today as
Albanian puth) < PIE *puk^-o
2) having as (indirect) cognate the Attested English 'fuck' < PIE
*puk^-no
than to suppose that Romanian PUTSA 'penis' is sourced ON AN
UNATTESTED LATIN WORD *putia, FOR WHICH WE ARE NOT SURE TO BE REALLY
ENDED IN -IA, AND FOR WHICH WE ARE NOT SURE THAT STILL EXISTED IN
LATIN (AROUND 200AC)?
Marius