Re: Let's forget *pu:tium

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2008-01-22 01:40, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't be better, to link Romanian PUTSA 'penis' (< *puk^-eh2)
> >
> > 1) with the PAlbanian PUTSA 'to kiss, to have sex' (Attested today as
> > Albanian puth) < PIE *puk^-o


> Sigh. I have objected to this connection on semantic grounds and
> haven't seen a plausible response to my objections. "PUTSA 'to have > sex'" is an imaginary object.

Is an old discussion, but I 'found it now':

You need to take a look at Demiraj [page 336-337] where for Albanian 'puth' is written also [dial. nordg.] 'koitieren' -> Eng. 'engage in sexual intercourse'. (And Demiraj is a native Albanian).

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xZftQtCaYE0C&pg=PA337&dq=puth+Demiraj#PPA336,M1

So in this case where is 'the objection' regarding 'the semantic grounds' between Romanian putsa 'penis' <-> Alb. puth 'to kiss, to have sexual intercourse'?


Marius