Re: Let's forget *pu:tium

On 2008-01-22 01:40, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> 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

Sigh. I have objected to this connection on semantic grounds and haven't
seen a plausible response to my objections. "PUTSA 'to have sex'" is an
imaginary object.

> 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)?

*pu:t- + some stem ending surely existed. I have no direct evidence of
its existence ca. AD 200, but the same is true of a host of other Vulgar
Latin words, not only in the Balkans but also elsewhere. Indirect
evidence is provided by Romanian and Greek, both of which have words
apparetly reflecting Lat. *pu:tia (or maybe pu:tea). These may represent
survivals of the original *pu:t- word, or have been abstracted from
<praepu:tium> in Balkan Latin with a change of gender (why not? Gk.
hesitates between f. and m.). Of course you are welcome to believe in
this *puk^ah2 scenario, just don't consider me convinced.

Piotr