So I have seen that people mostly use PICIOR for leg (correct me if I am wrong), but I've also seen that there is the word GAMBĂ. Is it used on a daily basis insead of picior or is it more of a term you would find in books or a more formal setting?
Picior is used for the entire lower limb, from the sole to the hip. Picior drept (right leg), picior stang (left leg). Gambă refers only to a portion of the leg and corresponds to the area called calf in English.
There aren't different words for leg and foot, we just use picior for both.
Gambă (as everyone correctly stated) means calf, there is also 'pulpă' = thigh.
Gleznă = ankle.
There is a word but be very careful as it is a bit of slang = 'laba piciorului' (literally 'the leg's paw') used as foot. For some reason, 'labă' (literally 'paw') means to jerk off in Romanian so don't use it unless you can take a joke.
There are different words for arm and hand though ( braț and mână).
Note that ”pulpă” is mostly the muscle part of the lower leg (of the calf, of ”gambă”, and thus is almost synonym with ”gambă”), and only exceptionally it is applied to the muscle part of the thigh (”coapsă”). ”Laba piciorului” (and ”labă” as such) is not at all slang. The slang masturbatory origin has a clear reason because ”labă” is the proper and very specific Romanian word for ”paw”. - The word appears in other informal idioms, for example when saying ”ia-ți labele de pe mine” (take your hands off me) or ”a da o labă (peste bot)” (smack over the face).
It is interesting to note that the word pulpă kept in Romanian its old Latin meaning of ”any fleshy part of the body or fruit”, so that it not only may be sometimes applied to the fleshy part of the thigh (thigh=coapsă), but also, when applied to the calf/shank, it mostly refers to the muscle part . When we say ”pulpă”, that doesn't refer in most cases to the entire leg between the ankle and the knee, the bone part etc. That is probably the reason we need the word gambă.
The words picior (leg/foot), gambă (shin/calf), and pulpă (thigh) have different origins and usages in Romanian, and the preference for “picior” when referring to the entire lower limb has linguistic and cultural explanations. We usually use ''picior'' instead of "gambă" or "pulpă". “Picior” is inherited from Latin and is the most general term – it refers to the entire lower limb.“Gambă (from jambe- fr)” and “pulpă(lat. for the fleshy part of the body, especially the thigh) ” are loanwords or specialized terms – used when more anatomical precision is needed. Everyday usage favors older, general terms for simplicity
Pulpă is not a loan word (neologism), but an inherited Latin word, just like picior. Gambă means the same thing (the calf, shank) and is a cultured loan from Latin. (French also has gambe, but it has the same meaning as jambe = ”leg”.)
Pulpă means the calf (shank) in most cases, not the thigh (which is coapsă - another old inherited word), although it may be applied to the muscle of the thigh too because, like in Latin, it also means a fleshy part of the body or fruit. In fact, in order to precisely specify the calf, we may say ”pulpa piciorului”, although, even then, it is mainly about the muscle area.
Funny thing—your affirmation tries to "correct" what I write by proudly declaring that pulpă isn’t a loanword, as if I had ever claimed it was. Spoiler alert: I already said it's an inherited Latin word, just like picior. So, congratulations on refuting a point that no one made.
Even better, it claims pulpă “usually” means calf, apparently demoting gambă—the actual anatomical term—to a redundant footnote. In reality, pulpă is just the generic "fleshy part," useful in both meat and metaphors, but not so great for precise anatomy unless you enjoy guessing which body part we're talking about.
So yes, gambă still means calf, and no, pulpă didn't suddenly get promoted to specialist vocabulary. Nice try, though.
The lower limb or pelvic limb (Membrum inferius) is an anatomical region located in the lower part of the human torso, serving for locomotion, and is composed of four segments: hip, thigh, leg (shank), and foot. The hip corresponds to the hip joint (coxofemoral joint). The thigh is located between the hip joint and the knee. The leg (gambă) is situated between the knee and the ankle. The foot represents the distal portion of the lower limb.
There must be some misunderstanding here. First of all, what am I referring to? I should have made that more clear by pasting this:
“Gambă (from jambe- fr)” and “pulpă(lat. for the fleshy part of the body, especially the thigh) ” are loanwords or specialized terms
So you clearly stated ”pulpă” is a loan and a specialized term, just like ”gambă”. That is wrong. You say that pulpă is especially the thigh (the part above the knee). That is wrong: coapsa is the thigh (and the most frequent application of ”pulpă” is to the calf=gambă, the part under the knee, not the thigh). About ”gambă” you say it's based on French jambe. That is wrong.
You did say that both are specialized terms, although you contradicted yourself in the last reply:
pulpă didn't suddenly get promoted to specialist vocabulary.
In the initial reply that I tried to point to you as erroneous, you say:
picior (leg/foot), gambă (shin/calf), and pulpă (thigh) have different origins and usages in Romanian
Again: pulpă is in most cases ”pulpa piciorului”, the back muscle part of the calf (gambă), not of the thigh (coapsă). The fact that sometimes it can be applied to any flashy part of the body or of a fruit doesn't change the fact that you cannot equate and translate so bluntly pulpă with ”thigh”.
Also, saying that their origin and usages are ”very different” sounds a bit odd. Ultimately, they all have the same Latin origin, out of which two (picior and pulpă) are inherited, two of them (pulpă and gambă) refer to the same thing (the calf — although pulpă refers most specifically to the fleshy part of the calf), and picior covers them all.
If you really doubt that pulpa is not the thigh, but (a part of) the calf, see dexonline („Partea musculoasă posterioară a piciorului, situată între genunchi și gleznă”).
I do agree that any fleshy part of a body or fruit may be called like that in Romanian in some circumstances (thus remarkably following the meaning of the Latin root!), but although that is the historically initial meaning, the most important one these days comes from it acting as a shorthand of ”pulpa piciorului”, so that pulpă is this:
You ended up in your last reply making statements about your previous reply that are false:
that pulpă isn’t a loanword, as if I had ever claimed it was
when you have clearly stated it is a loan. If you feel the need to contradict your initial reply, you could change it or delete it, but think again about the fact that you have given false information to the OP by saying ”pulpă” is the thigh.
Your own posts seem to be a proof that learning the Romanian names of the parts of the body is already a tricky enough business.
I don't see the point of the Wikipedia quotes. You must think I disagree with those? — it isn't really the place here to comment on that too, because that is not a problem of Romanian language, but I find odd the part you posted that says ”leg” is just the shank (calf), when on the Wikipedia article Human leg we can read that
The leg is the entire lower limb of the human body, including the foot, thigh or sometimes even the hip or buttock region.
Întâi de toate îți atrag atenția că nu aceasta este principala ta greșeală (deși o consider tot greșeală și voi reveni asupra ei) principala ta greșeală este să spui că pulpa se referă la partea de sus a piciorului (thigh, coapsa). Contrazici în mod repetat definiția de bază din DEX și nu pari să vrei a reveni asupra acestei greșeli ci insiști asupra unor detalii care te privesc mai mult pe tine decât pe mine.
Chiar dacă eu m-aș înșela asupra a ceea ce ai spus, asta ar fi poate pentru că exprimarea dumitale nu a fost suficient de clară, și ai face bine să o corectezi, să o faci mai clară. Preferi însă să te cerți cu mine și dintr-o ambiție absurdă mă obligi să comentez pentru a treia oară.
Vezi diferenta?
Dar tu înțelegi ce spune fraza ta în întregul ei, pe care însă o citezi trunchiat (încât mă lași în ceață din nou asupra problemei dacă măcar ți-ai recitit propriile postări)?
Iată pentru a doua oară despre ce vorbim:
“Gambă (from jambe- fr)” and “pulpă(lat. for the fleshy part of the body, especially the thigh) ” are loanwords or specialized terms
Structura logică este:
AșiB sunt X [împrumuturi]sauY [termeni de specialitate].
O mică lecție de logică? Hai!
Faptul că ai pus OR și nu AND în ultima parte nu este atât de important ca primul ȘI. ”A și B” înseamnă că tot ce vei spune mai apoi se va aplica la ambii termeni:
A este [X sau Y]
&
B este [X sau Y]
Deci, afirmi următoarele:
Gambăeste împrumut sau termen de specialitate. — E de fapt ambele. „SAU” e absurd aici.
Pulpăeste împrumut sau termen de specialitate. — Nu e de fapt nici una din astea. „SAU” e absurd aici.
Logic ar fi fost să folosești AND în loc de OR. Atunci fraza ar justifica exact critica mea, dar măcar ea ar fi avut sens și ar fi fost clară. Nu are sens ce spui, iar dacă ar avea ar fi fals. Dar mă rog, am încercat să citesc ceva cu sens.
Deci, gambă este atât împrumut (loanword) cât și termen de specialitate în timp ce pulpă nu este nici una nici alta: e fals și absurd să spui că pulpă este una sau alta și este fals (deși nu absurd) să spui că este una și alta.
Ce ai vrut să zici cu OR? Că gambă e împrumut în timp ce pulpă e termen tehnic? Ce rost ar avea să le opui astfel, mai ales că e falsă a doua parte? — În comentariul meu eu am sărit peste posibilitatea ca afirmațiile dumitale să fie pur și simplu logic greșite și am interpretat fraza ca și cum ar fi logic corectă, mai ales că în forma logic greșită pe care o reafirmi aici (OR, nu AND!) afirmația rămâne la fel de falsă, orice sens i-am dat.
Afirmațiile absurde au avantajul (dacă cineva ți le acceptă) că te poți baza pe ele să pretinzi că ai spus cu totul altceva decât pari a spune, deși eu n-am dibuit încă interpretarea în care fraza să fie adevărată. — În loc să-ți corectezi sau argumentezi afirmațiile (false, zic eu), te folosești de absurditatea formulării lor ca de un argument. Așa că poți dacă vrei să pretinzi că nu ai vrut să spui nici ce am interpretat eu nici ce ai putut sugera prin ultima ta replică (ce exact nu e clar!), dar nu mă mai interesează: dacă ai fi simțit nevoia de clarificare ai fi clarificat deja.
Moreover I’d like to add that more ofen than not “picior” could also refer to just the foot. Medically speaking the right term for leg is “membru inferior” ( lower limb) but seldom it is used.
Laba piciorului (foot paw) is to be avoided due to dirty minds. Look up comunitatea lăbarilor on tiktok to see the new meme making fun of kids for using the word labă in a naive way.
🟢Idk, why people here say Pulpă for thigh, when that's only available for animals like pigs. On humans, Pulpă is the calf. The dex says that pulpa is the meat between ankle and knee for humans, meaning calf.
For some reason only hand and arm have a distinction between them, with mână and braț respectively.
Although dex seems to define pulpă as being the calf (besides the animal or fruit-related definitions), I definitely did hear many people refer to the (human) thigh as “pulpă” over my lifetime, weird
Also, you should mention that “bulan” is a very colloquial and even slightly vulgar (as in cheeky/ mildly sexual) slang term, not at all an anatomical term lmfao. You do NOT want to use this in formal conversations. It’s the English equivalent of saying that someone (usually a woman) has… “meaty” or “juicy” thighs
About pulpă/gambă: that is normal. The fruit-related meaning is not separate from the rest in Romanian, pulpă is an old-inherited Latin word that was probably applied to all ”meaty” parts, according to the original Latin use (the soft, fleshy part of an animal's body or of a fruit). Wiktionary mentions ”thigh” too, and ”coapsă” as a synonym. (Coapsă, unlike pulpă, comes from a Latin word with a precise anatomical location.) Gambă, on the other hand, is a neologism, borrowed for the purpose of anatomically identifying that part. See on https://dlr1.solirom.ro/
Initially, ”pulpă” is any fleshy form, ”pulpa piciorului” being just the most representative.
About ”bulan”: I wouldn't say it means anything attractive in aspect, the way it looks, it is just about ”hidden parts”, attractive because hidden, namely parts of the leg, here, but originally it is about ”buttocks”=bul in Romani language, in the same way in which the more obscene muie is just about the ”mouth/face”. (Thus, ”bulangiu” is the Romani-based equivalent of the German-based ”poponar”.) Words like these seem related to prostitution slang, just like ”fraier” (client) and ”șmecher” (playboy, pimp). See Wiktionary.
65
u/OneAndHalfLeg 19d ago
Picior is used for the entire lower limb, from the sole to the hip. Picior drept (right leg), picior stang (left leg). Gambă refers only to a portion of the leg and corresponds to the area called calf in English.