--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> 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.
I feel obliged to re-post my meesage regarding the semantism of *puk^-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Kissing, as an expression of affection or love, is unknown among
many races, and in the history of mankind seems to be a late
substitute for the more primitive rubbing of noses, sniffing, and
licking." [Buck, p.1113]
I quotes this from the discussion on the etymology of English kiss
but is quite the same discussion
(please see it at
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=kiss)
So this *puk^- (from originally 'to punch, to sting' etc...) has
started to describe, initially, different contacts with sexual
connotations ...maybe also (why not?) all of them, in one term.
I think that this was the original meaning of 'the sexual
connotations' of *puk^-
This means also that the contacts, at that time, (including what we
could consider today as 'kisses') weren't quite 'pure soft contacts'
From there, I don't see any issue that puk^- became in time
either 'to fuck' or 'to kiss'
Marius
P.S. : or even 'to fuck and to kiss' in the same time