Trying to further clarify the obscure formation of prae-pu:tium
I 'found' another word containing pu:tium => salaputium
Catullus Poem 53
-----------------
LIII
1 Risi nescioquem modo e corona,
(I laughed at someone from the crowd I did not know)
2 qui, cum mirifice Vatiniana
3 meus crimina Calvus explicasset,
(who, when my friend Calvus)
(had magnificently explained the crimes of Vatinius)
4 admirans ait haec manusque tollens:
(admiring and lifing his hands, said this:)
5 "di magni, salaputium disertum!"
("Good Heavens, what an eloquent little man!")
or in another translation:
<<I laughed at someone or other from the crowd,
Who, after my Calvus had explained marvelously
The crimes of Vatinianus,
Admiring and raising his hands says these things:
"great gods, what an eloquent little squat!"
>>
Seneca the Elder
----------------
(Controv. 7.4)
"Erat enim parvolus statura propter
quod etiam Catullus
in hendecasyllabis vocat illum
salaputium disertum
"
<< Salaputium is such a rare word
that we have it nowhere else,
but Seneca Sr. says it mean a "runt"
or small fellow, which is good enough >>
Finally seems that the word inside both formations
prae-pu:tium and sala-pu:tium was pu:tium
-------------------------------------------------
=> This still keep unchange the below issues:
----------------------------------------------
1. A FEMININ form in Romanian (as Romanian putsa is) cannot be
originated directly from a LATIN "-UM" NOUN (see CAELUM > Rom. NEUTER
CER etc...), in our case from pu:tium
2. Why we don't have any trace in Old Romanian of prae-pu:tium or
of any other word reflecting *pu:tium , that at least appeared, in 2
attested Latin words : prae-pu:tium and sala-pu:tium? (but on the
other hand, Romanian has preserved the supposed main-word *pu:tea of
the pu:tium formation, an unattested form, that doesn't have any
other Romance cognate)
3. Why is *pu:tea => the 'supposed' main-word in pu:tium formation
and not pu:tus, pu:ta etc...?
We need here a safe etymology of the main-component of Latin
pu:tium in order to really assert that the main-word inside was pu:tea
(to propose *pu:tea Only to can derive Romanian putsa from it, is
not enough)
So, to resume, I think that:
to derive Romanian putsa :
1. - from a supposed unattested Latin *pu:tea
2. - the supposed main-word of pu:tium formation (attested at his
turn only in *prae-pu:tium and sala-pu:tium)
3. - in a context where no other cognate exists for the supposed
*pu:tea in any other Latin Language ...
is at least 'an Unsure Etymology'
At least for me.
Marius