From wiktioanry: "pellizcar (Spain) /peʝiθˈkaɾ/, [pe.ʝiθˈkaɾ] (Latin America) /peʝisˈkaɾ/, [pe.ʝisˈkaɾ]- From Vulgar Latin *vellicicāre, from Latin vellicāre, most likely ultimately from vellus (“the wool shorn from a sheep, fleece, or pelt”). Cognate with English vellicate."
I believe it's impossible because the /∫/ in Romanian can't be explained unless the word was "contaminated" with another one. Also I'm not sure if initial /u/ or /v/ can give /p/ in Romanian, but only /b/ or /v/.
The origin is in fact unknown, and an expressive, onomatopoeic origin was pointed as probable.
The closeness between pișca=to pinch and piele=skin, also pieliță="peeled skin" seems to plead in favor of the Spanish model mentioned in relation to "skin", but not at all decisively, rather improbably in fact, and without excluding a "contamination". (The problem with "contamination" is that is hard if not impossible to exclude and thus it has very low argumentative value.)
More tempting is the semantic closeness between the verb "pișca" (to pinch) and piguli (to peck, to nibble, also with fingers, related probably to an expressive root *pikk(-us) as in Castilian pico "beak" - see Boerescu, link below) and ciuguli (to peck, related to cioc=beak) and the morphological closeness to pisc (beak, but also "peak"). Although pisc is said not to fully explain the form of the verb, their connection seems outstanding. (See Boerescu, Etimologii românești controversate, p. 296 and following.) The closeness between "to pinch" and "to peck" is obvious, and a bird that is "pecking flowers" (Oriolus galbula) is called regionally pișcănfloare, literally "pinching-in-flower".
The common root might in fact be an expressive form of a larger area, namely pičc-, resulting in Latin piccicare, Albanian pitškoń, Italian pizzicare, Spanish pellizcar, old French pincer, which resulted in the English "to pinch".
The Latin connection is thus more probably an expressive root relating to a pointy object and to pinching and pecking, not vellus.
