From: Rick McCallister
Message: 51775
Date: 2008-01-22
> Looks like a convergence of the reflexes fromcybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Pokorny's 1. and 2. bhes-.
>
> As for bonobos, dogs are coprophages; men are not.
>
> Patrick
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rick
> McCallister<mailto:gabaroo6958@...>
> To:
>
><proto-language@...<mailto:proto-language%40msn.com>>
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 9:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] 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
>
> wrote:alexandru_mg3<mailto:alexandru_mg3@...<mailto:alexandru_mg3%40yahoocom>>
>
> > 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:
> >
>
>cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > To:
> >
>
>
> >cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com>>,
> > Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 5:59 PM
> > Subject: [tied] Re: ficken
> >
> >
> > --- In
> >
>
>
> > Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=kiss<http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=kiss><http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=kiss<http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=kiss>>)
> > > 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
> >
>
>
> >__________________________________________________________
> > 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, andhttp://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ<http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ>
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
>
>____________________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>