Brian wrote:
I don't know whether he says so or not, but that's via OFr <pousser> 'to
breathe with difficulty, to wheeze (~1150 for a horse, beg. 14th c. for a
person), to exercise physical pressure on, to shove or jostle (a person or
thing) (late 12th c.), later developing other senses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ishinan's response:
What is the source for the "~1150" date you are quoting above? Can this
source be accessed for the exact definition as well?
[...]
At any rate, it is quite revealing that all the meanings of these suggested
sources for «push» seem to occur in different languages around roughly the
same time, i.e. in the 14 th c.
Despite the great temptation to attribute it to Latin, none of these
examples have anything to do with the Classical pulso~are & pulsus. The 10
definitions of the Classical terms pulso~are & pulsus were quoted verbatim,
in my previous message, from "The Oxford Classical Latin Dictionary"
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62394
Ishinan
=====
You have already been explained the situation before
Cf. message 62396
The word "heart beat" pouls is attested early enough < Latin pulsus
There is no reason why the verb pou(l)ser should not exist.
The reason why this verb is not attested very early is because the verb
bouter used to be much more frequent than pousser.
There is no mystery at all.
How long shall I have to read all these absurd theories that turn obvious
latin words into Uralic or whatever borrowed as late as the XIV century ?
And by the way,
poussière is a different word pulver.
A.