Octavià wrote:Åge Kruger wrote:But in English and Swedish, we see that the meanings lip and lick are clearly related.
I've already explained that the fact these meanings might have conflated doesn't imply they were
originally related: lips aren't used for licking but the
tongue. This would be a case of
semantic contamination.
Semantic contamination is when a word which sounds similar to another one undergoes a shift in meaning to be closer to that of the other word. If you think that 'lap' is the result of semantic contamination, then please tell us what the original meaning of 'lap' was (my sources give the meaning 'to lick' all the way back to the PIE root).
Octavià wrote:Åge Kruger wrote:If you go back to the PIE roots, you get *leb and *lab, a common enough ablaut.
Not to mention they're in all probability substrate loanwords, nonetheless due to its
*b.
I don't think I can agree with you here. I think an imitative source is quite probable for both 'lip' and 'lap'. If you agree with me that *leb* and *lab are probably related, then I don't see why you have a problem with 'lip' and 'lap' being related.
Here is a summary of what I think we currently agree on:
1. The lips aren't used for licking.
2. The tongue is used for licking.
3. The lips are found in the mouth area.
4. The tongue is found in the mouth area.
5. The word "lap" means 'to lick up into the mouth'.
6. 'lip' comes from PIE *leb.
7. 'lap' comes from PIE *lab.
8. *leb and *lab are superficially similar.
9. *leb and *lab are most probably related.
Do we agree to this?