7 ms·

> Where male goes back to Latin masculus, female comes through French femelle from Latin femella. The eventual overlap in pronunciation was accidental. Latin w

by bryans 5y ago

> Where male goes back to Latin masculus, female comes through French femelle from Latin femella. The eventual overlap in pronunciation was accidental. Latin was masculus and femella, old French was masle/male and femelle/femaile, modern "English" is male and female. We didn't take one from Latin and one from French -- we took both from French. It doesn't make any sense that "male" was taken from "masculus" when "masle" was already in use.

tgv 5y ago
That's the hard science of etymology for you.
mdp2021 5y ago
The roots seem to be very different: -- if 'masculus' comes from (Sanskrit) 'marya', then it means "a mortal". The implicit meaning is evident in the more direct Latin form "maritus" (see English 'to marry'), the husband, meaning "you now have a role in which you shall behave aware of your mortality - i.e., as an "adult"". -- 'femina' comes from the nourishing ability of giving milk, ex 'felo' (the act of sucking, related to "fecunditas" (the condition that allows it - implying the ability to host a "fetus") and giving "felicitas" ("happiness" in the typical derived meaning, of the /pleasant/ occasion)). But easily, 'male' and 'female' then adapted to similar form being used for polar concepts.
- LudwigNagasena 5y ago
  >if 'masculus' comes from (Sanskrit) 'marya' But it doesn't.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    What is the most probable root of 'mas' then?
    - LudwigNagasena 5y ago
      It may come from the same Proto-Indo-European root *méryos that became 'marya' in Sanskrit. But whatever it is, a borrowing from Sanskrit is highly unlikely.
      - mdp2021 5y ago
        > a borrowing from Sanskrit is highly unlikely In which sense? Most of the content of post-Latin languages seems to be post-Sanskrit. Not necessarily as a direct derivation, but as a full appearance: you normally can see the Sanskrit dropped into Greek dropped into Latin (whatever the path, descendants or siblings).
        LudwigNagasena 5y ago
        The idea that European languages or that a sizable portion of their vocabulary descended from Sanskrit is quite outdated. It was understandable that some people in 18th century could hold such views because they didn’t know better, in 19th century it wasn’t held by most if not all scholars, in 20th century it was disproved beyond reasonable doubt, in 21st century it can only be regarded as pseudoscience.
        mdp2021 5y ago
        Are you sure you are not referring to a theory of direct derivation - which would be quite an irrelevant matter? Because evidence is that the Sanskrit terminology is massively present in this modern language and defines it; hence, awareness of Sanskrit is fundamental for awareness of the current language - which is the important thing. You could say that if they were unrelated, it would be the most extraordinary coincidence, and if their relation is not of «descende[nce]» that has much more relevance for historians than for language users, kind of mandated to know said language in depth. In fact, > pseudoscience with all that scindere, do not forget the point which is that of understanding phenomena to better know them, activity more of needles than of scissors (don't overcut, the purpose is different).
- e-dt 5y ago
  'masculus' does not seem to come from the Sanskrit 'marya' (both may have come from the same root), and 'marya' does not seem to mean mortal but rather young man. 'martya' (from a different root) does mean mortal, though, which is where you may have become confused.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    > both may have come from the same root But they seem to have the same meaning. The identified root seems to be "mṛ", that of mortality, and they may (/may/, with relevance to the content this paragraph) come from it; that one term in Sanskrit in inherited by Greek and then Latin is the «come from» I meant. > and 'marya' does not seem to mean mortal So where does it come from? According to some authors, 'marya' comes from "mṛ" just like 'martya', which you state has a different root. Edit: disambiguation: of course 'marya' is used for "young man". But it seems to mean "a "mortal", someone ready (initiated, young man, no more a child) to develop his defined (limited) path of life".
simonh 5y ago
Fair enough, but masle in Old French comes from the vulgar latin masclus, so the article isn't wrong, it's just that the lineage is indirect. It seems a very minor nit to pick.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bryans 5y ago
  Except the author is not claiming that Latin's masculus and femina/femella are unrelated, but instead that English's male and female are unrelated because "one is taken from Latin and one is taken from old French." That the French words are inarguably related and the lineage all leads back to the definitely-related Latin words, would mean the English versions are also related. Given the article's premise of words being unrelated, I'd say that's more of a massive plot hole than a "nit."
amelius 5y ago
What happened to femina?

by bryans 5y ago

tgv 5y ago

That's the hard science of etymology for you.

mdp2021 5y ago

The roots seem to be very different: -- if 'masculus' comes from (Sanskrit) 'marya', then it means "a mortal". The implicit meaning is evident in the more direct Latin form "maritus" (see English 'to marry'), the husband, meaning "you now have a role in which you shall behave aware of your mortality - i.e., as an "adult"". -- 'femina' comes from the nourishing ability of giving milk, ex 'felo' (the act of sucking, related to "fecunditas" (the condition that allows it - implying the ability to host a "fetus") and giving "felicitas" ("happiness" in the typical derived meaning, of the /pleasant/ occasion)). But easily, 'male' and 'female' then adapted to similar form being used for polar concepts.

LudwigNagasena 5y ago
>if 'masculus' comes from (Sanskrit) 'marya' But it doesn't.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  What is the most probable root of 'mas' then?
  - LudwigNagasena 5y ago
    It may come from the same Proto-Indo-European root *méryos that became 'marya' in Sanskrit. But whatever it is, a borrowing from Sanskrit is highly unlikely.
    - mdp2021 5y ago
      > a borrowing from Sanskrit is highly unlikely In which sense? Most of the content of post-Latin languages seems to be post-Sanskrit. Not necessarily as a direct derivation, but as a full appearance: you normally can see the Sanskrit dropped into Greek dropped into Latin (whatever the path, descendants or siblings).
      - LudwigNagasena 5y ago
        The idea that European languages or that a sizable portion of their vocabulary descended from Sanskrit is quite outdated. It was understandable that some people in 18th century could hold such views because they didn’t know better, in 19th century it wasn’t held by most if not all scholars, in 20th century it was disproved beyond reasonable doubt, in 21st century it can only be regarded as pseudoscience.
        mdp2021 5y ago
        Are you sure you are not referring to a theory of direct derivation - which would be quite an irrelevant matter? Because evidence is that the Sanskrit terminology is massively present in this modern language and defines it; hence, awareness of Sanskrit is fundamental for awareness of the current language - which is the important thing. You could say that if they were unrelated, it would be the most extraordinary coincidence, and if their relation is not of «descende[nce]» that has much more relevance for historians than for language users, kind of mandated to know said language in depth. In fact, > pseudoscience with all that scindere, do not forget the point which is that of understanding phenomena to better know them, activity more of needles than of scissors (don't overcut, the purpose is different).
e-dt 5y ago
'masculus' does not seem to come from the Sanskrit 'marya' (both may have come from the same root), and 'marya' does not seem to mean mortal but rather young man. 'martya' (from a different root) does mean mortal, though, which is where you may have become confused.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  > both may have come from the same root But they seem to have the same meaning. The identified root seems to be "mṛ", that of mortality, and they may (/may/, with relevance to the content this paragraph) come from it; that one term in Sanskrit in inherited by Greek and then Latin is the «come from» I meant. > and 'marya' does not seem to mean mortal So where does it come from? According to some authors, 'marya' comes from "mṛ" just like 'martya', which you state has a different root. Edit: disambiguation: of course 'marya' is used for "young man". But it seems to mean "a "mortal", someone ready (initiated, young man, no more a child) to develop his defined (limited) path of life".

simonh 5y ago

Fair enough, but masle in Old French comes from the vulgar latin masclus, so the article isn't wrong, it's just that the lineage is indirect. It seems a very minor nit to pick.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bryans 5y ago
Except the author is not claiming that Latin's masculus and femina/femella are unrelated, but instead that English's male and female are unrelated because "one is taken from Latin and one is taken from old French." That the French words are inarguably related and the lineage all leads back to the definitely-related Latin words, would mean the English versions are also related. Given the article's premise of words being unrelated, I'd say that's more of a massive plot hole than a "nit."

amelius 5y ago

What happened to femina?