hitchens@ut-sally.UUCP (Ron Hitchens) (04/20/84)
[has anyone considered the bug's feelings on this matter?]
After reading the recent articles about sexism in language, man=male,
etc., I got to thinking about something I learned in a History of the
English Language class a couple of years ago. I think I may have realized
something obvious. Let me recap my train of thought. Given: the word
"woman" descended from the Old English word wifeman. In O.E. "man" meant
a person, and the word wifeman was a particular type of man. Wifeman
contracted to wi'man, then wiman and finally became woman when angular
printing was popular (it was common to change i's to o's for readability).
Well, (I thought) that's seems feasible, but if "man" was generic, and
wifeman was the female case, why not husbandman for the male? Then a tiny
ray of sunshine penetrated my dark and musty cranium:
If
wifeman = wi'man = woman
why not
husbandman = hu'man = human ??
What I figure is this: Originally the word for a person was "man",
the qualifiers "wife" and "husband" were used to specify which type a
given individual was. At least that was the intended structure. But
somewhere along the line the meanings of human and man got mixed up,
probably during one of the periods when the Normans outlawed English
and it had to survive underground. Plus, of course, the patriarcal
nature of civilization tends to identify males as more complete people
which would add to the confusion. Plus English comes from German, in
German the word "man" (pronounced mon) means an unspecified person,
could be a holdover.
Anyway, sufficient postulation. Just a thought. Anyone out there
have a better grasp of the roots of English ?
Cheers,
Ron Hitchens hitchens@ut-sally.UUCP
-------------------------------------------
{pithy statement here}rpk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Robert Krajewski) (04/23/84)
``Human'' is a Latin stem, not a contraction of ``husband-man.'' Probably the Germanic ``man'' and the Latin/Romance ``human'' roots share the same etymology. -- ``Bob'' (Robert P. Krajewski) ARPA: RpK@MC MIT Local: RpK@OZ UUCP: genradbo!miteddie!rpk or genradbo!miteddie!mitvax!rpk
amigo@iwlc6.UUCP (John Hobson) (04/23/84)
Ron Hitchens, while musing over the origins of the word "wife", says: >> If >> wifeman = wi'man = woman >> why not >> husbandman = hu'man = human ?? >> >> What I figure is this: Originally the word for a person >> was "man", the qualifiers "wife" and "husband" were used to >> specify which type a given individual was. At least that >> was the intended structure. But somewhere along the line >> the meanings of human and man got mixed up, probably during >> one of the periods when the Normans outlawed English and it >> had to survive underground. Plus, of course, the patriarcal >> nature of civilization tends to identify males as more >> complete people which would add to the confusion. Plus >> English comes from German, in German the word "man" >> (pronounced mon) means an unspecified person, could be a holdover. Nice try, Ron, but it won't wash. The word "humanus" (-a, -um) is perfectly good Latin and means (surprise, surprise) a human being. "Husband" is from the Old English "husbonda", meaning the master of a household, and derives from the Old Norse "hus" (a house) and "bondi" (a householder). This, along with the fact that in c.500 Europe, a house generally meant a farmhouse, may help you understand why farming is sometimes called husbandry. Also, don't forget that while the German "Man" (which I always heard pronounced with a very short "a" and the "n" almost swallowed) does mean an unspecified person (the usual translation is either "one" or "someone", such as "Man macht diese" -- "someone does this", not to be confused with the number Ein), the word "Mann" (which takes the masculine article "der") means a man, and is pronounced with a sslightly longer "a" and a very long, stressed "n". "Mann" is also the usual German word for a husband as in "diese ist mein Mann?" -- "this is my husband". Similarly, the word "Frau" is both a woman and the honorific for a married woman. John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs--Naperville, IL ihnp4!iwlc6!amigo
rene@nlm-mcs.ARPA (Rene Steiner) (05/01/84)
From ariels@mako.UUCP (Ariel Shattan) Mon Apr 23 11:18:31 1984 Close, but no cigar. As I have stated before, in this very newsgroup, 'man' meant adult human. 'Wifman' meant female adult human, and 'carlman' or 'wereman' (yes, werewolf means "man-wolf") meant male adult human. 'Human' has a latin origin, while 'man' has a germanic origin. Ariel Shattan ..!tektronix!orca!ariels Actually, as I learned in German class, "Werwolf" means "who-wolf" (The "e" was added to make "werewolf" because English doesn't like letter combinations like -rw-). - rene
martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Martillo) (05/01/84)
Wrongo! From Wahrigs Deutsches Woerterbuch Werwolf <m.; im Volksglauben> ein Mensch, der sich zeitweise in einen Wolf verwandeln kann u. dann Unheil stiftet [< mhd. werwolf ,,Wolf, in dem die Seele eines Menschen steckt''; zu ahd. wer ,,Mann, Mensch'' + Wolf; -> a. Wergeld, Welt] Do we really need these silly language discussions?
rcb@fortune.UUCP (Robert Binstock) (05/02/84)
Actually, the tendency for general words to become more specific in time is very common in linguistic evolution. For instance, "girl" meant a child of EITHER sex in Chaucer's time; "meat" used to mean all food (as in "One man's meat is another man's poison"); and liquor used to mean all beverages (as in "nectar, the divine liquor"). R.C. Binstock