# Etymology:  man, woman and human



## Abu Bishr

Hi everybody

What is the etymology of these 3 words? I read somewhere that "man" used to mean "human being" - whether male or female - such that "woman" actually means 'a female human'. It was only later on that "man" acquired the narrow meaning of 'male human being'.

In this regard, then, the early designation of "man" corresponds to the Afrikaans "mens" . Based on this "woman" would mean "vroumens". However, in Afrikaans we also use "man" to refer to a male human being and "vrou" to a female human being. It would then seem to me that "man" in (later) English and Afrikaans refers to a male human being in both languages. "Man" with a capital "M" appears to be the equivalent of "mens" in Afrikaans, and "Mankind" the equivalent of "mensdom". Because of the connotations of "maleness" in "Man" and "Mankind", there is a preference for the word "Humanity" which appears to be neutral. However, both "human" and "woman" contain the word "man" which in early English meant a human being (male or female). In other words, "woman" and "human" have nothing to do with "man" in the sense of "male human being".

What are your thoughts on the etymology of "man", "woman" and "human", and maybe we can also add "person" and the Afrikaans "mens"?


----------



## berndf

My recollection is that "woman" is derived from "wife-man" (corresponding middle English forms of course) "wife" here meaning woman (cf. German "Weib" and "man" for human beeing (cf. German "Mensch"). I am quoting German because those are the closed cognates I know off hand.

I think I saw something like this in the OED but I am not sure.


----------



## Macnas

I'm going from memory here, so I'm not 100% sure about the forms:

Old English used the word _mann_ (modern English "man") to refer to any human being of either sex. It had completely separate words for "male" and "female" - _wer_ "man" (no longer used in Modern English, except it can be seen in the compound _werewolf_ "man-wolf") and _wíf_ "woman" (modern English "wife"). Frequently these would be compounded: _wermann_ and _wífmann_. The latter eventually evolved into modern English _woman_, while the former gradually fell out of use. _Mann_ then came to be used as a term for males as opposed to females instead of all humanity.

Modern English _human_ has separate origins. It comes from Latin _hûmânus _"human". The -man portion is coincidental.

_Person _comes from Latin as well, from _persôna_. I believe this originally referred to the part a person played in a play, as well as personality (somewhat like Modern English _persona_, which I think is a re-borrowing of the Latin term). This in turn is believed to come from Etruscan _phersu_ "mask".


I don't know much about Afrikaans, but _mens_ looks like it's just a doubly-marked plural (ie, it takes the plural _men_ and then reinforces it by adding an -_s_). This is just a guess, though.


----------



## Outsider

I refer you to the Online Etymology Dictionary's entries on "man", "woman", and "human". Here's an excerpt:



> *woman
> *
> late O.E. _wimman_ (pl. _wimmen_), lit. "woman-man," alteration of _wifman_ (pl. _wifmen_), a compound of _wif_ "woman" (see _wife_) + _man_ "human being" (in O.E. used in ref. to both sexes; see _man_).


----------



## Frank06

Hi,

Some extra links.
* 'man': Pokorny gives "[PIE *]manus oder monus" and especially the German meanings "Mann, Mensch" are helpful here, while Watkins only gives the (English and hence ambiguous) meaning 'man'.
In Dutch and Afrikaans this general meaning is found back in words as 'iemand' and 'niemand' (<ie+man, the d (or t) is a later addition).
* 'human': we have to go back to Latin homo (human being, man < PIE *(dh)ghom-on-, < *dhghem-, Watkins). It's a completely different root, but there seems to be some sort of a parallel what the meaning 'human being / male person' is concerned...
* 'woman', I just give this and this link in addition to the explantions by other members.
* Afrikaans and Dutch 'mens' (Middle Dutch mensce, mensche and mensch) comes from the PGm. adjective *manniska- < PIE *manus. The -e- in 'mens' is due to the i-Umlaut (so it's not a double plural).

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Abu Bishr

Thank you, everyone, for your very informative replies.

So is there a link between "man" and "Mann" on the one hand, and "mens" and "Mensch" on the other? Am I also right in assuming that English does not seem to have the equivalent of "mens" / "Mensch" in terms of a common root?


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Abu Bishr said:


> So is there a link between "man" and "Mann" on the one hand, and "mens" and "Mensch" on the other?


Definitely yes .



> Am I also right in assuming that English does not seem to have the equivalent of "mens" / "Mensch" in terms of a common root?


Not anymore. Old English did have 'mennisc' (adj. human, n. mankind, folk, race, people). Modern English does have 'mannish', in which the effects of the Umlaut are undone, if I may believe that dictionary. A quick look seems to indicate that this _only_ means 'manlike', 'masculine' in modern English, though it used to mean 'human' in the ol' days (e.g. Chaucer).

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Flaminius

Hi Frank,
Seeing that Watkins gives _*dhghem-_ as the etymon of "human" and "chthonic" _inter alia_, I begin to wonder if Lithuanian _žmogus_ (man, human) and Latvian _zeme_ (earth) share the same root.  Can you see anything that immediately supports or falsifies this idea?


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Flaminius said:


> Seeing that Watkins gives _*dhghem-_ as the etymon of "human" and "chthonic" _inter alia_, I begin to wonder if Lithuanian _žmogus_ (man, human) and Latvian _zeme_ (earth) share the same root.


 
Both Watkins (who mainly concentrates upon English) and Pokorny make the link between 'earth' and 'human'. This link should(*) bring you to the article on *g^hðem-, *g^hðom- (Root #620). It mentions Lettish zeme and Lithuanian žmogus.

Groetjes,

Frank

(*) "Should", because the database is often not working. Good luck .


----------



## zpoludnia swiata

The indoeuropean root *dhghem also appears in the English "groom" and German "Brautigam".
English "man" or German "Mensch" is of indoeuropean origin, and appears in Slavic languages.  Russian "mushchina" (man), Polish mezczyzna (man), Russian "muzh" (husband).  I don't know about other Indo European languages...


----------



## Funihead

_Anthropos_ is human while woman is _gynos _and man is _viros_ - Hope this helps 

-=~Funihead~=-


----------



## Frank06

Hi,



Funihead said:


> _Anthropos_ is human while woman is _gynos _and man is _viros_ - Hope this helps


In which languages?
_Anthropos_ I recognize as Ancient Greek.
_Gynos_ and _viros_ I don't recognize. Could you clarify, please.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## berndf

Frank06 said:


> _Gynos_ and _viros_ I don't recognize.


 
Gynos: He obviously means γυνή (gyne).
Viros: I think he means 'ανήρ (aner), probably confused ny and v.

Bernd


----------



## Outsider

_Vir_ is "man" in classical Latin.


----------



## berndf

And Viros? That would be the accusative plural (_Viros video., I see the men)_. In the context of two Greek words?
But you are probably right. Confusion of Greek and Latin with a Greek second declension suffix.


----------



## elpoderoso

Is this ''Viros'' related to the ''Wer'' mentioned in post three and the Spanish ''Varón''?


----------



## berndf

elpoderoso said:


> Is this ''Viros'' related to the ''Wer'' mentioned in post three and the Spanish ''Varón''?


 
_Vir_(Latin) and _Varón:_ no, _Wer/Vir_(PIE) and _Varón:_ yes

-> http://books.google.com/books?id=k9...ts=jZTHNX3UXI&sig=CgxQY-RXBdhLL3vRGNePW6U3_0I


----------



## Frank06

Hi,



elpoderoso said:


> Is this ''Viros'' related to the ''Wer'' mentioned in post three and the Spanish ''Varón''?


Vir/wer: yes
varón/vir: yes (see below).



berndf said:


> _Vir_(Latin) and _Varón:_ no, _Wer/Vir_(PIE) and _Varón:_ yes


 
The very same source you quote mentions that they _are_ related, that vir and varón are cognates.


> Spanish _varón_ does not come from Latin _vir_, but is at least related, via French and Germanic, to the Indo European stem _vir_. [my stress]


More information on PIE *vir (actually *wiro-) can be found here.

[edit]But I still have a lot of doubts...[/edit]

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Outsider

Also, "werewolf" etymologically means "man-wolf".


----------



## elpoderoso

Outsider said:


> Also, "werewolf" etymologically means "man-wolf".


I knew that one, there was also the term ''Wergild'' used in Saxon times for the fine payed to a victim or their family by someone who had killed or harmed them (The amount varying according to the injured party's social status)


----------



## raptor

Going back further, in Mesopotamia, "Man[kind]" was mannan, and hu-mannan [human] was mighty man.



> Seeing that Watkins gives *dhghem- as the etymon of "human" and "chthonic" inter alia, I begin to wonder if Lithuanian žmogus (man, human) and Latvian zeme (earth) share the same root. Can you see anything that immediately supports or falsifies this idea?


Does the Latvian term zeme mean earth [ground, soil], or Earth [planet Earth]?

Linguist/historian Zecharia Sitchin translated the creation of The Adamu (a generic term meaning primitive worker; the Biblical Adam) as mixing red clay or earth [adama] with blood [dam]. Adamu and adama are obviously related. I'm not sure how Adamu became hu-mannan, although they came to mean the same thing [Adamu "primitive worker" became Adappa "priest-king" when (according to Sitchin) humans were allowed to have their own monarch.]


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


raptor said:


> Linguist/historian Zecharia Sitchin


Sitchin is neither a linguist, nor is he an historian. 

From Wikipedia I quote:



> Zecharia Sitchin is a best-selling author of books promoting the ancient astronaut theory for human origins. He attributes the creation of the ancient Sumerian culture to the Annunaki (or Nephilim) from a hypothetical planet named *Nibiru* in the solar system.


Yeah, right.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## raptor

Also from Wikipedia:



> [Sitchin] acquired a knowledge of modern and ancient Hebrew, other Semitic and European languages, the Old Testament, and the history and archeology of the Near East. Sitchin graduated from the University of London [snip] His books have been widely translated, converted to Braille for the blind, and featured on radio and television.


 
To the mods: sorry that this is off topic, but I don't want my earlier post to be dismissed as unfounded. I recognize that any idea or theory must be backed up by fact, and believe only such.
Sorry to any who found my post offensive, as did Frank06.

raptor


----------



## Frank06

Hi,

I'll ask it another way. 


raptor said:


> Going back further, in Mesopotamia, "Man[kind]" was mannan, and hu-mannan [human] was mighty man.


In which of the languages spoken in Mesopotamia? My first reflex was to look it up in a Sumerian lexicon (where I couldn't find it back), but Sumerian wasn't of course the only language spoken in that region. The closest I could get was Akkadian mannum/mannam, which is the interrogative pronoun "who?". I searched here (for Akkadian), here for Aramaic and here (for Sumerian, pdf).
But maybe I am searching the wrong dictionaries (or even languages). So, I am stuck here, but that doesn't mean a thing. 

Could _you_ please help me out and give an independent source for the words 'mannan' and 'hu-mannam', so, preferably *not* from Sitchin or any of his supporters? 

The reasons why I don't think that Sitchin c.s. is an appropriate source may become clear from this, this, this, this (pdf file, p.43). Both his interplanetary theories on how ET's cloned or created human beings [*edit*] and his so-called 'translations' (see here) of almost any language written down in Mesopotamia to 'prove that theory' [*/edit*] are many lightyears beyond the scope of this forum.

But lets' skip the discussion on Sitchin himself and concentrate upon the language(s). 

Thanks in advance,

Frank

[*edit*]PS: 
May I also draw your attention to the WordReference Mission Statement (to be found here):


> II. The Forums promote learning and maintain an atmosphere that is serious, *academic* and collaborative, with a respectful, helpful and cordial tone. [*My* stress]


And to the EHL rules (to be found here):


> This forum deals with (firmly) established historical linguistic peer reviewed theories.


[*/edit*]


----------



## raptor

Hi,

Actually, I did not get hu-mannan from Sumerian, Akkadian, or Aramiac.  From the book: "In old languages such as Vedic, the word _hu_ relates to 'mighty' and the proto-linguistic term hu-mannan (whence, 'human') identifies 'mighty man'."  Unfortunately, Laurence Gardner does not give a source to these terms, and I have been as yet unable to find a Vedic lexicon to verify them.

Adama is is quoted as "earthling" [of the earth/red clay] in E A Speiser's work "The Anchor Bible - Genesis".
Gardner does quote Sitchin in some areas, but I don't know if he is "one of Sitchin's followers".

Sorry for bringing this whole argument about.  I'll be sure to follow those rules Frank06 reposted.

raptor


----------



## Frank06

Hi again,

Thanks for the reply.

First of all, lest we forget:


raptor said:


> in Mesopotamia, "Man[kind]" was mannan


1. In which Mesopotamian language? Where in Mesopotamia? When? If not Mesopotamia, from where? Those are quite basic questions, no?
2. Can you guide me to a dictionary, lexicon or word list in which this word is mentioned?



raptor said:


> "In old languages such as Vedic, the word _hu_ relates to 'mighty' and the proto-linguistic term hu-mannan (whence, 'human') identifies 'mighty man'."


More questions 
1. "In old languages such as Vedic". In which other languages? 
(By the way, I take it he means Vedic *Sanskrit*?)
2. What is a "proto-linguistic term"? Does it mean 'related to proto-language'? If so, what do you mean by this and if so, how do you arrive at the reconstruction?
2b. Can you explain the connection between "old languages such as Vedic" and "proto-linguistic term"? I don't understand this.
3. Do I read this correctly? Do you or the author connect 'hu-mannan' with 'human'??



> and I have been as yet unable to find a Vedic lexicon to verify them.


Try a Sanskrit dictionary. Maybe you have more luck than me. I searched 5 of them, without a result. But maybe I searched in a wrong way.

Any which way, pseudo-scientists such as Gardner and Sitchin are outside the scope of this forum. BIS.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## raptor

Hi again,



> First of all, lest we forget: (Quote=raptor)in Mesopotamia, "Man[kind]" was mannan(/Quote=raptor)


Here I was referring to Gardners book which I quoted from on my last post. 
So 1) It was Vedic (yes, Vedic Sanskrit, I imagine), other than that, I don't know, but believe Sumer. 2) I found:manu = father of the human race; maanava = human (http sanskritdocuments org dict dictall txt [dots colons and dashes omitted]; from http www ibiblio org sripedia ebooks mw 0800 mw_0817 html : manu = 'the thinking creature(?), man, mankind'; from http en wikipedia org Sumerian_language : "Composites like *lugal* (from *lu* "man" and *gal* "big") are also common"; and from http psd museum upenn edu epsd nepsd-frame html : "humanity: lulu [Man] "man, humanity" [Akk. amēlu; lullû]".

1) I don't know, this is a verbatim quote. 2)a I think proto-linguistic term is a word that is the source of others (proto I think being the ancestral bit) b) I don't know, either. 3) The author connects them (verbatim quote).

I'll be more careful in future to make sure what I say makes sense and is backed up by real evidence!

Thanks for the directions to the dictionaries!

I hereby remove myself from this thread and retract my initial post.


----------



## Asgaard

Hi,



Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> Both Watkins (who mainly concentrates upon English) and Pokorny make the link between 'earth' and 'human'. This link should(*) bring you to the article on *g^hðem-, *g^hðom- (Root #620). It mentions Lettish zeme and Lithuanian žmogus.
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank
> 
> (*) "Should", because the database is often not working. Good luck .



The link between *'human' *and *'earth'* can be seen in many languages:

In Romanian and Bulgarian, *Huma*= Type of clay ( Argila-rom). 
(latin - humus = earth)

Also Vår(m) , Varå(f) - cousin (  Lat. [consobrinus] verus, [consobrina] vera. ) -> *Var*(u)(Romanian, Bulgarian)= Hydrated Calcium (soft calcium clay - Calcium Hydroxide )
גבר (*Ge'ver ) - *man (Hbr) ( Coincidence??) 
Celtic -  fer 
Latin - ver

Any connection between Erde (earth) and  Persian word for man?
 مَرد (*mærd*) (1); مَردُم (*mærdom*) (2)) = man


----------



## berndf

The root consonants of Gever are GBR. I think the similarity of Gever and Ver is an artefact of the Latin transcription.


----------



## Montaigne

In Sanskrit "manu" means man (thinking creature).
Most likely the oldest IE root.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,

Welcome to this forum!



Montaigne said:


> In Sanskrit "manu" means man (thinking creature). _Most likely the oldest IE root._


How do you mean?

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Montaigne

Indo-European (not proto) for "man".


----------



## karuna

Asgaard said:


> The link between *'human' *and *'earth'* can be seen in many languages:



Interesting, but what could be the reason for this connection? In Latvian the closest I can think about is _zemnieks _which means _a farmer _but in the past it included practically all common people. Still, seems to be very far-fetched idea.

Also _iezemietis, citzemietis _(a native, a foreigner) could be attributed to _zeme, _but here it means _land, country._


----------



## Asgaard

Hi karuna,



karuna said:


> Interesting, but what could be the reason for this connection? In Latvian the closest I can think about is _zemnieks _which means _a farmer _but in the past it included practically all common people. Still, seems to be very far-fetched idea.
> 
> Also _iezemietis, citzemietis _(a native, a foreigner) could be attributed to _zeme, _but here it means _land, country._



Could it be the Bible? Genesis2-7?

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

I have no idea really, but this could lead to a fiery debate.

Regards,
Asgaard


----------



## berndf

Asgaard said:


> Hi karuna,
> 
> 
> 
> Could it be the Bible? Genesis2-7?
> 
> "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
> 
> I have no idea really, but this could lead to a fiery debate.
> 
> Regards,
> Asgaard


 
In this case, it is obvious. The Hebrew word for _man_ (=human being) used in this passage is _adam_ (aleph-daleth-mem) and the word for _dust_ is _adamah_ (aleph-daleth-mem-he).


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


karuna said:


> Interesting, but what could be the reason for this connection?





Asgaard said:


> Could it be the Bible? Genesis2-7? [...]this could lead to a fiery debate


The Bible (Genesis) being the reason why in PIE there seems to be a connection between the word for earth and the word for human? 
Please, tell me I misunderstood this.

[edit]
If you are referring to something as '(made) of earth (which is _reflected_ in e.g. the Bible, even though I cannot find a reason to connect the Bible with PIE, early IE languages etc.), then I understand.
But for what it's worth: Watkins explains the relation earth/human referring to the *locative* case of PIE *dhghem-, viz. *dhgh(e)mon, 'on the earth', 'earthlings', 'earth dwellers'. Here you find another explanation. The author is the moderator of the Cybalist e-group.[/edit]

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Asgaard

Hi Frank,
I couldn't say it any better. 





Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> The Bible (Genesis) being the reason why in PIE there seems to be a connection between the word for earth and the word for human?
> Please, tell me I misunderstood this.
> 
> [edit]
> If you are referring to something as '(made) of earth (which is _reflected_ in e.g. the Bible, even though I cannot find a reason to connect the Bible with PIE, early IE languages etc.), then I understand.
> But for what it's worth: Watkins explains the relation earth/human referring to the *locative* case of PIE *dhghem-, viz. *dhgh(e)mon, 'on the earth', 'earthlings', 'earth dwellers'. [/edit]
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank





Thanks
Asgaard


----------



## avok

Hello ,

Is there any relation between the Turkish word "er" (or erkek) that means "man" and "vir,wer" etc.. and even "earth,erde" etc


----------



## Asgaard

Hi,
I've found the following to be significant :

Old Indian (starling.rinet.ru)
to become, to be  -  bhū́man- n. `earth, world, being',  bhūmán- m. `abundance, multitude', -bhu- (in comp.) `becoming, being'


Nice Day,
Asgaard


----------



## karuna

Asgaard said:


> Hi karuna,
> 
> Could it be the Bible? Genesis2-7?
> 
> "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
> 
> I have no idea really, but this could lead to a fiery debate.
> 
> Regards,
> Asgaard



Probably not because these words existed before to-be-Latvian tribes had contacts with Christianity. There was a question if _zeme _means planet Earth or soil earth and the answer is that it means both, and besides it also means "land" and "country". And it is not hard to imagine that one who lives on it can also be named as such. Today "earthman" is called _zemietis _in Latvian. Don't confuse this word with a Lithuanian tribe who are also called _zemieši _or _žemaiši _because this name comes from the word "_zems" _or "low [ground]".


----------



## Forero

I have heard the word _mensh_ used in English, presumably from Yiddish, for _(personable) human_.

The "man" of "humanus" is just the "m" of "homo" (man) and the "an" of "-anus", to which I believe the "-aans" of "Afrikaans" is related.


----------



## avok

Look what I've found. (look at the word "adam")

Homo: man, Humus:earth apparently says the Dictionary they are related. And also "Hebrew ādām:man ", "adāmah:earth"


----------



## berndf

Forero said:


> I have heard the word _mensh_ used in English, presumably from Yiddish, for _(personable) human_.


 
_Mensch_ is German (Yiddish is 90% German and spelled with aramaic letters. If you re-translitterate this into Latin letters in English you get _mensh_). It can be masculin meaning _human beeing_ or neuter meaning _woman_. The word probably originated from an adjective derived from man. If you tried to reconstruct this in English you would get "manish".


----------



## Outsider

Several people in this thread have implied that _man_ or _human_ are related to Semitic _adam_. Is there any basis for this idea?


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Forero said:


> The "man" of "humanus" is just the "m" of "homo" (man) and the "an" of "-anus", to which I believe the "-aans" of "Afrikaans" is related.


Which implies, if I understand well, that 'man' and 'homo' ultimately go back to the same PIE root. Can you substantiate the claim that 'man' and 'homo' are cognates?
But that's not the only problem: As written before, the widely accepted etymology for man involves the PIE root *man-, while Latin 'homo' goes back to a completely different PIE root. What's wrong with those etymologies?

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## berndf

Outsider said:


> Several people in this thread have implied that _man_ or _human_ are related to Semitic _adam_. Is there any basis for this idea?


 
I don't think so. It is only an interesting parallel that the Hebrew word for human being (adam) is also related to earth (adamah).


----------



## Erutuon

The actual cognate of Latin _homō_ is Old English _guma_, from which we get _bridegroom_ (_brýd-guma_).


----------



## Hoomehr

I was searching the Web for root of the word "man", then I ended up my search in this forum and this thread.

Could any one possibly give me a list of books which I can trust on and read them about etymology of the "man" ?

cause in Persian there was a word with the exact same meaning and the same pronunciation as the word "man" but it's not being used anymore. in Persian it is written like "من".

then I found that in middle Persian the word "من" (mæn) was "منش" (mæneʃ) which I think that might be like the word "mansch" in old German language.

Thanks in advance if anyone could guide me


----------



## fdb

Welcome to this forum. Here everyone can say whatever they like, whether it is true or not. So you should be aware that a lot of what is written in this thread needs to be read with caution.

Now to your question:

Persian _man_ “I, me” is not related to English “man”, but it is related to English “me” and similar forms of the 1st person singular pronoun in other Indo-European languages. There is no "mæneʃ" in Middle Persian; this is a mistake.

English “man” is related to Sanskrit _manu__ṣa_- “man”, and to Avestan _manuš-_, the name of an ancient hero, from which is derived the name _manuš.čiϑra-_ “of the seed of Manuš”, in New Persian Manūčihr (with –ušč- > -ūč-).


----------



## Havfruen

Danish here does make distinctions between male persons and persons in general:
a man = en mand
a woman = en kvinde
one = man
mankind = menneskeheden 
a person = et menneske


----------



## francisgranada

fdb said:


> ... English “man” is related to Sanskrit _manu__ṣa_- “man”, and to Avestan _manuš-_, the name of an ancient hero, from which derived the name _manuš.čiϑra-_ “of the seed of Manuš”, in New Persian Manūčihr (with –ušč- > -ūč-).


 For curiosity, this word can be found also in the Central-Euroean Romany (Gypsy) dialects in the form _manuš _(fem. _manušni_).


----------



## aruniyan

About "Man", Here if the original vowel is short then it should have come from the meaning of mind.. for example the Indian _Mana_(literally "*to retain within*" ie. to understand, to remember)
but if its long _"_ā_" which i think most likely_, then it should have come from the meaning of greatness, _Maa_ = "_*retain cannot/unknow*n_"  referring to greatness/vastness. May be here the semantics is man the  male who go far away places or the one who knows more, the human.


----------



## ancalimon

Outsider said:


> Also, "werewolf" etymologically means "man-wolf".



Interesting. In Turkic werewolf is actually erbörü ~ erbörüg meaning "man wolf".  (maybe börüg is related with warg)




Asgaard said:


> Hi,
> The link between *'human' *and *'earth'* can be seen in many languages:
> 
> In Romanian and Bulgarian, *Huma*= Type of clay ( Argila-rom).
> (latin - humus = earth)
> 
> Also Vår(m) , Varå(f) - cousin (  Lat. [consobrinus] verus, [consobrina] vera. ) -> *Var*(u)(Romanian, Bulgarian)= Hydrated Calcium (soft calcium clay - Calcium Hydroxide )
> גבר (*Ge'ver ) - *man (Hbr) ( Coincidence??)
> Celtic -  fer
> Latin - ver
> 
> Any connection between Erde (earth) and  Persian word for man?
> مَرد (*mærd*) (1); مَردُم (*mærdom*) (2)) = man



It seems like there could also be a connection in Turkic.

yer: earth, ground
er: man, human
Apparently related with the word Turk itself.  (torpak ~ tor : earth, sand, clay, terra)

In my opinion, these are also related with Turkic words "teker : wheel" and also "er : ascendance, transcendence" and "erk : power,force, energy, torque"


----------



## Cenzontle

For the "earth"/"human" connection, don't forget "humus", English and Latin referring to soil.


----------



## mojobadshah

berndf said:


> My recollection is that "woman" is derived from "wife-man" (corresponding middle English forms of course) "wife" here meaning woman (cf. German "Weib" and "man" for human beeing (cf. German "Mensch"). I am quoting German because those are the closed cognates I know off hand.
> 
> I think I saw something like this in the OED but I am not sure.



I also recall woman is derived from wife-man.  It made me wonder whether initially a woman was only considered a woman after she had become a wife.  Could that have been the case?


----------



## Hoomehr

Thanks for all of your information, but ...



fdb said:


> There is no "mæneʃ" in Middle Persian; this is a mistake.



may be your right about middle Persian, but in modern Persian there is a similar word like this "منش" (mæneʃ) which means instinct.

my research is about the word "man" as I said previously, so I need a reliable source to trust on. Could you possibly give a source of what you said? Thanks in advance.

I was searching for similar words in Arabic that I found the words "al-Insan" (æl-iːnsʌn) {الانسان} and "al-Basharat" (æl-bæʃæræt) {البشرة} [simply known as بشر]. does anyone know about these words?



fdb said:


> English “man” is related to Sanskrit _manu__ṣa_- “man”, and to Avestan _manuš-_, the name of an ancient hero, from which is derived the name _manuš.čiϑra-_ “of the seed of Manuš”, in New Persian Manūčihr (with –ušč- > -ūč-).



what was the name of that Avestan hero ? could you possibly write down the phonetics? cause I couldn't read it.

In Persian the equivalent for English word "man" is "مرد" (mærd) which I read in a book that is derived from the hero "گیومرتن" (gʊəmærtæn) who is known in Avesta as the first human.

In modern Persian for "Human" we use "Adam" which is Hebrew and words "al-Insan" and "al-Basharat" which are Arabic. my problem now is that what is the Persian equivalent for the word "human".

Thanks for all of your information


----------



## fdb

NP. _mani__š_, Middle Persian _menišn_ is from the root *_man-_ “to think”. It is not related to any word for “man”.

The Avestan proper names that I quoted are _manuš- _and _manuš.čiϑra-, _NP. منوچهر  . (The signs that I have used are all in Unicode, so you should see them on your screen. Or not?).

Persian _mard_ does not come from Gayōmart, it is actually the other way round: Avestan _gaiiō.marətan-_ means “living mortal”; its second component comes from the Iranian root “to die”. This root is also the source of NP. _mard_.

Anyway, there are lots of books on Iranian historical linguistics, and also a couple of people who teach this subject in universities and perhaps know what they are talking about. If you want to know more feel free to send me a private message.


----------

