2

Namely, a conjecture: хуй < ховать.
Can it be a worthy version? Or why not?

To my surprise I’ve found a discussion where this version does not look like something absolutely groundless (to me).

Just one solid argument will be enough if ховать (proto)forms/roots cannot be a source of хуй.
Particularly I wonder if the questioned hypothesis is inconsistent with some language paradigm(s) and/or needs to be a unique case of something.

A question apparently for experts, please. The Internet is already full of popular (quasi/pseudo)argumentation that gives me nothing.
(I understand that answering it can be a labour and discussing the discussed (already somewhere else) can be impolitely off-communitic, so deleting the question is OK.)

1
  • 1
    Please don't use expletives in the title (they are ok in the body and tags, but not in the title). While this site is about all aspects of language, profanity included, the titles might appear on the side widget on another sites.
    – Quassnoi
    Commented Jun 19, 2015 at 16:33

2 Answers 2

1

As one of comments in the discussion points out, this "explanation" comes from an old joke.

1
  • 1
    Комментарий уже удален. Пожалуйста, дайте развернутый ответ. Commented Jun 21, 2015 at 10:42
0

Nope, this version doesn't make any sense.The real source of the word хуй is an ancient Slavic root ху-, which means sprout or outgrowth.

1
  • Could you please cite your source?
    – Quassnoi
    Commented Jun 29, 2015 at 22:57

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.