--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
> in my opinion, the ultimate root of *pu:-ti in PIE is *p(h)ewH-
, 'stink', a related form of *p(h)ew-, 'swell up'. The connection is
that dead animals swell up and split apart during decomposition, and
generate a horrendous stink.
>
> There is no *H3 in *pu:-ti- (*p(h)ewH-ti-), the "laryngal" itself
merely lengthens the vowel (*u) resulting from the contraction of *ew
(however, it cannot be ruled out that a transitional form was *p(h)e:w
(H)- due to the effect on the vowel of the initial *p(h)-).
>
> The linguistic connection between words for disagreeable odors and
both male and female genitals is well-known.
>
> That this is a very old word is supported, at least for me, by
Egyptian bw, 'abominate', and *bw.t, 'abomination'. The determinative
pictures a fragrant field with mushrooms or animal droppings so it is
reasonable to associate the detestation with foul odors, which are
generally detested.
>
>
> Patrick
I understand you point, but on my side I will try to explain why I
couldn't match, for semantic reasons, any *pu- or *puh- roots with
*pu:tium
a) *put- 'small' (rejected by Weiss too, in his article)
-> short-u inside
-> I cannot see the link 'small' -> 'penis'
b) some *put- forms meaning 'penis' (like Biel. potka > put-ika)
-> short-u inside (Weiss too)
So regarding a) and b) I fully agree with Weiss that is impossible to
link pu:tium with a) or with b)
Next, I took in account other 2 roots reflecting a long u:
b) *puh- 'pure' > Latin pu:rus
-> but I cannot see the link 'pure' -> 'penis'
c) *peuh-/*puh- 'to rot, to decay'
-> here I could accept of course some specific 'strong' odours
related to the sexual organs => However I couldn't retain this root
because:
If you take a look to all the PIE words derived from this root :
we cannot find sexual organs, sexual actions or sexual liquids etc..
that are derived from this root : at least on my side, I couldn't
find such a word, clearly related to this root.
In addition, in Latin (because we are talking about pu:tium as a
Latin word) we have in Latin (related to this root): pu:s,
pu:teo:, /putred/ (to say directly in Romanian), etc...as you can see
a lot of forms: but there is nothing related to sex.
Also, I think that when an object(/an action) is defined (based on
some similarities), (one of) Its Main Characteristics are indicated
in that definition (not its Secondary ones)
Look at Romanian/Albanian:
bardza: 'the white (bird)' > 'stork'
c^wa:rra: 'the black (bird)' > 'crow'
One bird has a lot of white the other is conpletely black...
Now regarding the 'penis' (but we can easy extrapolate next to any
other sexual organ or sexual action) : I think that MORE SPECIFIC
that its smell (that is there, I agree, but is not 'an extreme one')
we have two things:
1. => its very specific form related to its erection
From here it means : "kind of pointed object" in so many Indo-
European Languages
2. => it could be also, the liquid that it produces and the specific
modality in which it produced this liquid
When somebody says 'penis' , he has in his mind First of All : the
image of its erectile form and not its smell
Of course, this is how I can see the things, from my point of view.
Marius
P.S. : On the other hand (not to impose my proposal) but I would like
to ask you and everybody in this forum related to these 2 questions
that I have tried to answer:
-> what is the PIE root of /pizda/
(because for sure the structure is not <root>-eh2)
-> what is the PIE root of Germanic /foam/ ?
(and what could be the meaning of these root(s)?)
These are legitimate questions I think, more important for
themselves, than related to a possible link to Latin *pu:tium