4 ms·
Mensch, människa, menneske, ..., and (most likely) manusha are cognates. But it's still curious how "manusha" sounds like "människa" while the vowels have been
by yobbo 4y ago
Mensch, människa, menneske, ..., and (most likely) manusha are cognates. But it's still curious how "manusha" sounds like "människa" while the vowels have been dropped in "mensch".
- schoen 4y agoFor some reason German sometimes drops the i in "-isch" (cognate with English "-ish"). But the only reasonably common examples I can think of are Deutsch (etymologically definitely with -isch/-isk) and Kölsch ('pertaining to Cologne'). I don't know if this is somehow an example of a more widespread phonological process in German.
- yobbo 4y agoIn Swedish, "isk" endings are sometimes contracted to "sk" such as "polsk"="polish" and the only way to say "pertaining to Köln" would be "kölsk" (unless specifically the beer.) But "människa" is a noun. It's pronounced "menisha" but it doesn't mean "manish". In Norwegian, the word for humane is spelled "menneskelig" literally "menneske-like". (In Norwegian the 'k' is hard.) As I can gather, the literal meaning in sanskrit of "manusha" = "born of Manu" = human. Manu is a god.
- schoen 4y agoWiktionary claims that "människa" does mean "manish" (and that it's a direct cognate with "mensch"): https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/manniskaz https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic... It's just that that etymology has become opaque to modern-day Germanic language speakers.