4 ms·

I do not see it that way. But, fair enough. If it has always been that way we should keep it that way.

skinkestek 6y ago
IIRC and AFAIK it comes from old norse, madr which used to mean human. They had separate words for female madr and male madr. Lately it has been a popular conspiracy that this is because "patriarchy" but the real reason is probably as mundane as simplifications over centuries.
- shuntress 6y ago
  Obviously the evolution of the english language is so long-running and complex that no group could have conspired to implement a deliberate change such as this for whatever reason. With that said, please consider this: What type of societal structure would be likely to merge the words for "human" and "male" while leaving the word for "female" separate?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    > What type of societal structure would be likely to merge the words for "human" and "male" while leaving the word for "female" separate? The origin of the secondarily developed semantic meaning of “man” as a “male adult human" is simply because when a man be anything other than an adult male, speakers are statistically more likely to emphatically note it in some way. Exactly what you did by asking “what of the women?” when it is quite clear from context to anyone what “man” means in this context. “woman” is an overtly marked phrase compared to “man" that arises from a need felt by some speakers to explicitly mark it when a person be female, but not when it be a male. A similar situation is that white U.S.A. residents are often called “Americans” but for other colors overtly marked phrases such as “African-American” or “Asian-American” are common in parlance, which, due to this behavior, eventually gives further currency to the term “American" as developing a secondary meaning of “specifically white American”.
    - skinkestek 6y ago
      Would you mind telling us if knowing all this is related to your work or if you've cared to learn it just for fun or something? (Totally understand if you don't want to.)
      - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
        My relationship with historical linguistics, and linguistics in general is that I consider it both interesting and pseudoscientific — I will also admit that my dislike for the discipline might be colored by my negative experiences in conversing with linguists on a personal level. My interest is otherwise nonprofessional though I minored in it in university. Especially linguistic psychology is to be taken with a grain of salt — what I said about how unmarked forms of words acquire secondary meanings is certainly the consensus in that field, but it is not as if it were ever established empirically, nor could it; it is simply an idea that appeals to the intuition and there is nothing obviously wrong with it.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  No, Old Norse “maðr” and English “man” have a common ancestor in the reconstructed common Germanic stem *“mann-”; neither was loaned from the other. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/mann- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic... Further analysis upward is more tentative: hypothetically, the word could share a common ancestry with the Latin stem “ment-” for “mind” which would make the semantic origin of *“mann-” to be quite obvious. It is likely related to the Sanskrit stem “manu-” which indeed means either “thinking” when used adjectivially, and “human” when used substantively. Old English certainly did not loan it from Old Norse and the Old English form of the word “mann”, reflects what would be expected if it descended directly from common Germanic. The Old English words for “male” and “female” were “wer” and “wīf” respectively; Old English “wīfmann”, as in “female human” is what gave rise to modern English “woman”, and “wer” almost completely died out and only survives in “werewolf” and “world”, the latter a simplification of *“wer-old”, as in “a male's lifetime”, undergoing significant semantic shift. “wīf” is of course also the origin of modern English “wife”, but had no implication of marriage in Old English.
  - skinkestek 6y ago
    Burns to be wrong but I learned something :-)

IIRC and AFAIK it comes from old norse, madr which used to mean human. They had separate words for female madr and male madr. Lately it has been a popular conspiracy that this is because "patriarchy" but the real reason is probably as mundane as simplifications over centuries.

shuntress 6y ago
Obviously the evolution of the english language is so long-running and complex that no group could have conspired to implement a deliberate change such as this for whatever reason. With that said, please consider this: What type of societal structure would be likely to merge the words for "human" and "male" while leaving the word for "female" separate?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  > What type of societal structure would be likely to merge the words for "human" and "male" while leaving the word for "female" separate? The origin of the secondarily developed semantic meaning of “man” as a “male adult human" is simply because when a man be anything other than an adult male, speakers are statistically more likely to emphatically note it in some way. Exactly what you did by asking “what of the women?” when it is quite clear from context to anyone what “man” means in this context. “woman” is an overtly marked phrase compared to “man" that arises from a need felt by some speakers to explicitly mark it when a person be female, but not when it be a male. A similar situation is that white U.S.A. residents are often called “Americans” but for other colors overtly marked phrases such as “African-American” or “Asian-American” are common in parlance, which, due to this behavior, eventually gives further currency to the term “American" as developing a secondary meaning of “specifically white American”.
  - skinkestek 6y ago
    Would you mind telling us if knowing all this is related to your work or if you've cared to learn it just for fun or something? (Totally understand if you don't want to.)
    - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      My relationship with historical linguistics, and linguistics in general is that I consider it both interesting and pseudoscientific — I will also admit that my dislike for the discipline might be colored by my negative experiences in conversing with linguists on a personal level. My interest is otherwise nonprofessional though I minored in it in university. Especially linguistic psychology is to be taken with a grain of salt — what I said about how unmarked forms of words acquire secondary meanings is certainly the consensus in that field, but it is not as if it were ever established empirically, nor could it; it is simply an idea that appeals to the intuition and there is nothing obviously wrong with it.
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
No, Old Norse “maðr” and English “man” have a common ancestor in the reconstructed common Germanic stem *“mann-”; neither was loaned from the other. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/mann- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic... Further analysis upward is more tentative: hypothetically, the word could share a common ancestry with the Latin stem “ment-” for “mind” which would make the semantic origin of *“mann-” to be quite obvious. It is likely related to the Sanskrit stem “manu-” which indeed means either “thinking” when used adjectivially, and “human” when used substantively. Old English certainly did not loan it from Old Norse and the Old English form of the word “mann”, reflects what would be expected if it descended directly from common Germanic. The Old English words for “male” and “female” were “wer” and “wīf” respectively; Old English “wīfmann”, as in “female human” is what gave rise to modern English “woman”, and “wer” almost completely died out and only survives in “werewolf” and “world”, the latter a simplification of *“wer-old”, as in “a male's lifetime”, undergoing significant semantic shift. “wīf” is of course also the origin of modern English “wife”, but had no implication of marriage in Old English.
- skinkestek 6y ago
  Burns to be wrong but I learned something :-)