Re: ficken

Obviously you've never come across French baiser
--once "kiss", now "fuck"; which is why the French
split their sides laughing everytime an American
orders "bouillabaise"

Regarding what Americans call "French culture" --if
bonobos engage in oral sex, cavemen probably weren't
far behind


--- Patrick Ryan <proto-language@...> wrote:

> Because of the vocalic poverty of PIE, many terms of
> quite disparate meaning became, for all intents,
> identical in form, which lead to associations by
> form even when the semantics were completely
> unrelated.
>
> An occasional word of a 'kiss' is English is 'peck',
> e.g.
>
> I would, however, be rather amazed if any root
> meaning 'kiss' could develop into meaning 'fuck'. It
> simply does not make sense semantically, IMHO.
>
> The hidden premise here is, I think, that oral to
> genital contact is suggested. I firmly believe that
> until indoor plumbing and civilized hygiene, genital
> to genital contact was almost exclusively the rule.
>
> Even male homosexual activity was probably almost
> exclusively anal to genital contact.
>
> Patrick
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> alexandru_mg3<mailto:alexandru_mg3@...>
> To:
>

cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com>

>
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 5:59 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: ficken
>
>
> --- In
>

cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com>,

> Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> > No, it's you who is enforcing things. Show me
> one language in which a
> > verb referring to copulation evolved
> semantically into 'kiss'. The
> > opposite (i.e. the euphemistic use of "innocent"
> vocabulary) is
> > commonplace -- see below.
> > Piotr
> >
>
> Piotr,
>
> "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<http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=kiss>)

>
> So this *puk^- (from originally 'to punch, to
> sting' etc...) has
> described, 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
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ