# All Slavic languages: Meaning of člověk (or cognates)



## jazyk

> Dative (recieving noun) -Dao sam knjigu covjeku. (I have given the book to the man)


I was surprised when I saw covjek means man in BSC. To me that word's cognates mean _person_ in most situations. Is there any other language where it primarily means man? By man I mean a member of the male sex.


----------



## Ptak

In Russian "*человек*" not only primarily, but actually means _person, human_. For _man_, we have another word.


----------



## Duya

Just as English _man_, in BCS _čovjek_ can mean "person", "human" or "male", depending on context. I don't see why the surprise. If you want to avoid confusion, you can use _muškarac_ for male human.

I've always thought that conflation of person/human/male is a common PIE semantics, or at least widely spread. Even Latin _homo_ has the same three meanings (well, I've never studied Latin).


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

In Slovenian, *človek *(dual *človeka*, plural *ljudje*) usually refers to any human. However, _Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika_ gives the following definition: "a person regardless of sex or a male person." In some Slovenian dialects, the word can also refer to a husband, but only when possession is indicated gramatically.

Like the German *Mann/man *couplet, *človek *can also mean "one" (an undefined person) in Slovenian.


----------



## jazyk

> Just as English _man_, in BCS _čovjek_ can mean "person", "human" or "male", depending on context. I don't see why the surprise. If you want to avoid confusion, you can use _muškarac_ for male human.
> 
> I've always thought that conflation of person/human/male is a common PIE semantics, or at least widely spread. Even Latin _homo_ has the same three meanings (AFAICT, I've never studied Latin).


I knew somebody would say this, so that's why I underlined primarily and also specified_: a member of the male sex_. Besides, if you were to say in English: I gave a man the book, nobody would think of any person of either sex, they would only think of a male. Man could be used as a person in more general terms, as in The man is a rational being.

Latin homo meant person of either sex and man (male) was vir, from which English got very male words like virile and virility.


----------



## Duya

jazyk said:


> I knew somebody would say this, so that's why I underlined primarily and also specified_: a member of the male sex_. Besides, if you were to say in English: I gave a man the book, nobody would think of any person of either sex, they would only think of a male. Man could be used as a person in more general terms, as in The man is a rational being.



We seem to violently agree... My point was that the interpretation depends on context; when one refers to "a man" in an everyday situation, it is 99.9% a male who is referred to (or imagined). In BCS, _čovjek_ would be also used in translations of your two sentences.

As for Latin, I was seduced by Italian _uomo_, which seems to cover all 3 meanings as well (but I'd better stop showing my ignorance in Romance languages). Well, what's it like in Portuguese?

My Russian is not good enough, but I suppose that

_Я дал книгу человеку._

at least strongly implies that the person in question is a male. Or am I wrong again?


----------



## jazyk

> As for Latin, I was seduced by Italian _uomo_, which seems to cover all 3 meanings as well (but I'd better stop showing my ignorance in Romance languages). Well, what's it like in Portuguese?


Both uomo (Italian) and homem (Portuguese) could be man as a person or man as a male, but as I explained above, as any person it's only used in general sentences. In the BCS sentence, if we were to use uomo/homem, we'd think of a male being.



> _Я дал книгу человеку.
> 
> _at least strongly implies that the person in question is a male. Or am I wrong again?


No, it is a person of either sex.


----------



## Ptak

Duya said:


> My Russian is not good enough, but I suppose that
> 
> _Я дал книгу человеку._
> 
> at least strongly implies that the person in question is a male. Or am I wrong again?


You are wrong.
For example, in Russian we can say:
_Аня просит у тебя книгу. Ну дай ты наконец книгу человеку (=ей)!_


----------



## Duya

jazyk said:


> Both uomo (Italian) and homem (Portuguese) could be man as a person or man as a male, but as I explained above, as any person it's only used in general sentences. In the BCS sentence, if we were to use uomo/homem, we'd think of a male being.


 
Here are several BCS examples (singular). As far as I can tell, _čovjek_ can be translated to English "man" in every single instance:

_Dao sam knjigu čovjeku_. = I gave this book to a [male] man.
_Čovjek je racionalno biće. = _Human is a rational being.
_Čovjek je gramziv_. = Human beings are greedy.
_Taj čovjek je gramziv._ = That [male] man is greedy.

Plural "ljudi" typically means "persons", "people", "crowd", "mankind" and seldom if ever "men" (males, _muškarci_):

_Podijelili smo hljeb ljudima = _We distributed the bread to the people
_Ljudi su racionalna bića. = _Humans are rational beings.
_Ljudi su gramzivi. = _Human beings are greedy.
_Ljudi su se okupili. = _Crowd gathered.
_Ja volim ljude_. = I like people.



jazyk said:


> No, it is a person of either sex.



Then, it's the Russian that's an odd man out, not BCS. In BCS, it's the same as in English, Portuguese, Italian, at least in singular.

----
OK, OK, I get the apparent source of talking past each other now: you're aware of Russian usage, and are surprised that BCS is different. On the other hand, I'm aware of English and Romance usage -- the same as BCS -- and I'm surprised that Russian is different. Neither of us seems to know the situation in West Slavic and Bulgarian. 



Ptak said:


> You are wrong.
> For example, in Russian we can say:
> _Аня просит у тебя книгу. Ну дай ты наконец книгу человеку (=ей)!_



Ah, yes, that's impossible in BCS. We would have to use "ženi" in that sentence.


----------



## texpert

*Člověk *in Czech is roughly equal to *Man *in EN (human, human kind, a person, filling word in sentences as _Man I had a dreadful flight - člověče, to byl hrozný let_).


----------



## Darina

First meaning of човек is human in Bulgarian.
I can tell a woman: Ти си добър човек. You are a good human, woman, person, so on. So човек is used when the sex does not matter.
Second meaning is man. But if is improtant to make a difference between man and woman, I would rather say мъж (man) and жена (woman).
Plural of човек is хора. Люде is considered archaic.


----------



## Azori

In Slovak _človek _means a human, person (pl. _ľudia_ - people). For a man there is another word.


----------



## Kolan

Duya said:


> My Russian is not good enough, but I suppose that
> 
> _Я дал книгу человеку._
> 
> at least strongly implies that the person in question is a male. Or am I wrong again?


Well, you are right, this example is unambiguous. But it is more question about human rights which became a debated issue recently, on my memory.

You can say in Russian *женщина - человек*, but in most cases you will have to insist on that (*женщина - тоже человек*), because this does not work  universally _ipso facto_.  

*Женщина – тоже человек, или Баба в машине - к несчастью | Живой Журнал*
21 янв 2008 *...* _Женщина_, конечно, _тоже человек_, и ничто человеческое ей не чуждо: комфорт и удобство передвижения быстро находили отклик в чудесных женских *...*
www.livejournal.ru/themes/id/4078 - 47k 

*Права человека – это права и женщин тоже > Новости Молдовы ...*
26 ноя 2008 *...* Права _человека_ - это права и _женщин тоже_. Правозащитники Молдовы в  очередной раз объединились, чтобы напомнить об этом не только домашним *...*
sanatate.md/?l=ru&a=news&i=1267 - 42k

I guess the roots of that are deeply planted in Christianity (_God_, which is clearly depicted in Genesis as being of a masculine nature, _created man_ _to His own image_), therefore, are immanent to Russian. The same is true for Serbian for the same reason.

*Вера :: Церковь :: О Церкви :: Есть ли у женщины душа? Миф о ...*
Но действительно ли Церковь на полном серьёзе решала вопрос о наличии у _женщины_ души и о возможности считать её _тоже человеком_? *...*
vera.mipt.ru/church/women_soul.html - 20k


----------



## Zerdav

I do not agree with Duya, maybe he uses the word _čovjek_ as a male being (muškarac), but I would never use it in such a context and haven't heard others use it. 

*Čovjek*-a human being regardless of sex, a being capable of free thought, any person 
*Muškarac-*a male human being...is used to specify the manly, sexual or behavioral 
*Žena*-a female being...is used to specify the female, sexual or behavioral
        -a wife
        -a human being when refered to females

the meaning of mean can sometimes translate to the word muškarac but not the other way.
_Budi muškarac!_ it could have 2 meanings: act like male (which can often mean doing silly things like not crying while in pain) 
                                                              :be responsible, grown-up 
_Budi čovjek!_ would only mean be responsible, grown-up, humane -not having any conotation to a specific gender although it would be rarely used when talking to a woman

The fuzz happens with the word _žena_, which is actually a semantic equivalent to the word man when it comes to the number of meanings. 
for example; we say: _čovjek i pol_ when refering to male only, although it has no gender conotation, and _žena i pol_ when refering to female
Basicly when ever we talk of a female person (regardles of giving gender conotation or not) we use the word _žena_.


----------



## Duya

Zerdav said:


> I do not agree with Duya, maybe he uses the word _čovjek_ as a male being (muškarac), but i would never use it in such a context and haven't heard others use it.
> 
> *Čovjek*-a human being regardless of sex, a being capable of free thought, any person



No, my point is that the meaning depends on context. In your examples, _čovjek_ indeed refers to a human being. But tell me, in the following examples:

_Dao sam tom čovjeku pare.
Na ulici mi je prišao jedan čovjek.
_what gender do you expect the man to be? It would hardly be a women, don't you agree? Whenever we talk about _one particular_ "čovjek", we mean "a male" in 99% cases.


----------



## iobyo

In Macedonian, _човек_ (čovek) (pl. _луѓе_) means "human/person" by default but typically only in set phrases. So one could say about a lady "таа е човек од дело", etc. Otherwise this word takes its secondary meaning of "male person" and would be replaced with _жена _(žena, "woman") in most circumstances relating to women where _човек_ would refer to a man.

To use an example posted in Serbian which works well in Macedonian:


Човекот е разумно суштество. ("Man is a rational being").
Again, just as in Serbian, _луѓе_ does not have any masculine nuances.

To avoid confusion, _маж_ ("man") and _жена_ ("woman") can be used. But they too can mean "husband" and "wife" colloquially. So if one wanted to avoid any further confusion, _сопруг_ and _сопруга_ could be used instead ("spouse").


----------



## Athaulf

Zerdav said:


> I do not agree with Duya, maybe he uses the word _čovjek_ as a male being (muškarac), but I would never use it in such a context and haven't heard others use it.



You might find it interesting that in Bosnia (or at least some of its parts), _čovjek_ (or perhaps _čo'ek_ ) is frequently used with the meaning "husband". This sounds somewhat rustic, though.


----------



## Kolan

Athaulf said:


> You might find it interesting that in Bosnia (or at least some of its parts), _čovjek_ (or perhaps _čo'ek_ ) is frequently used with the meaning "husband". This sounds somewhat rustic, though.


This is true for standard Ukrainian (чоловiк = husband), while людина (spelling людына in Russian) is человек (a Russian cognate for човек). Людина (ukr.) is feminine grammatically and applies to both sexes.

Interesting, that both words, ч(ел)овек and люд(и) could derive from the same hypothetical Protoslavic word, approximately spelt like челюдь, which in modern Russian (челядь) stands for relatives (usually, a large family with more than one degree of kin) and servants living in the same dwelling.


----------



## Duya

Kolan said:


> Interesting, that both words, ч(ел)овек and люд(и) could derive from the same hypothetical Protoslavic word, approximately spelt like челюдь, which in modern Russian (челядь) stands for relatives (usually, a large family with more than one degree of kin) and servants living in the same dwelling.



Very interesting. BCS has "čeljad" too (albeit somewhat archaic), with similar meaning (which I'd roughly translate as "infants").


----------



## Natabka

Kolan said:


> This is true for standard Ukrainian (чоловiк = husband), while людина (spelling людына in Russian) is человек (a Russian cognate for човек). Людина (ukr.) is feminine grammatically and applies to both sexes.



That's right, let me summarise it a little.* In Ukrainian* we have these meanings:

*чоловік *- 1)man
--------- 2)husband
--------- 3)person of any sex (used only when counting, i.e. 20 чоловік, though "20 людей" sounds better to me)
--------- 4)a peasant (old-fashioned)

So, what I'm saying is that the most frequently used meanings of this word are "man" and "husband". For person of any sex there's a word "*людина*".


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Athaulf said:


> You might find it interesting that in Bosnia (or at least some of its parts), _čovjek_ (or perhaps _čo'ek_ ) is frequently used with the meaning "husband". This sounds somewhat rustic, though.


 
According to _Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika_, this meaning ("husband") also exists in some Slovenian dialects, even though I have never encountered it myself. The dictionary states that *človek* must be preceded by a possessive pronoun ("moj človek", "tvoj človek", "njen človek") when this meaning is intended.


----------



## Kolan

Natabka said:


> *In Ukrainian* we have these meanings:
> 
> *чоловік *- 1)man
> --------- 2)husband


I guess, that the first meaning was either established under the Russian influence during the past centuries or inherited directly from Ancient Eastern Slavic (common to the both languages), while the second one may be Ukrainian proper because it never existed in Russian.


----------



## Natabka

Kolan said:


> I guess, that the first meaning was either established under the Russian influence during the past centuries or inherited directly from Ancient Eastern Slavic (common to the both languages), while the second one may be Ukrainian proper because it never existed in Russian.



Well, here I've found some more information on the topic:

It seems that NO ultimate etymology of this word can be established as it is "known to all other [than Ukrainian and Russian] Slavic languages" according to Berneker.

But if we could gather here the information about the etymology of this word (from ALL the Slavic languages), then maybe it will be possible to say for sure whether its meaning of "a man" comes from some specific languages or is, as Kolan suggests, "inherited directly from Ancient Eastern Slavic", or even from ? Ambitious task? 

So, in Ukrainian the word "*чоловік*" is to be found from the times of Old Ukrainian:

OUk, OES* - *челов*ъ*к**ъ | члов*ъ*к**ъ*
MUk** - *чолов*ъ*к**ъ*
(according to "An Etymological Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language" by Rudnyc'kij)
_________
*OES - Old Eastern Slavic
**MUk - Middle Ukrainian

As for the protoforms of this word, I have come across two versions:

1) After Rudnyc'kij and Berneker:
*čelověk**ъ - * _č__elo _- 'clan' and _v__ěk__ъ _- 'descendant'


2) After Fortunatov (what inimaginaible forms!):

*čölviekъ | čölъiekъ - * '_čöl_-' possibly connected with the root of the word '_челядь_'


----------



## Kolan

Natabka said:


> But if we could gather here the information about the etymology of this word (from ALL the Slavic languages), then maybe it will be possible to say for sure whether its meaning of "a man" comes from some specific languages or is, as Kolan suggests, "inherited directly from Ancient Eastern Slavic", or even from ? Ambitious task?
> So, in Ukrainian the word "*чоловік*" is to be found from the times of Old Ukrainian:
> OUk, OES* - *челов*ъ*к**ъ | члов*ъ*к**ъ*
> MUk** - *чолов*ъ*к**ъ*
> (according to "An Etymological Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language" by Rudnyc'kij)
> As for the protoforms of this word, I have come across two versions:
> 1) After Rudnyc'kij and Berneker:
> *čelověk**ъ - *_č__elo _- 'clan' and _v__ěk__ъ _- 'descendant'
> 2) After Fortunatov (what inimaginaible forms!):
> *čölviekъ | čölъiekъ - *'_čöl_-' possibly connected with the root of the word '_*челядь*_'


Well, it seems that the Natabka's post is an excellent contribution to the topic.

Talking about Ukrainian cognates for "man", besides the second meaning "*чоловік*"=husband (which is also confirmed in some Slovenian dialects, 


TriglavNationalPark said:


> According to _Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika_, this meaning ("husband") also exists in some Slovenian dialects, even though I have never encountered it myself.


the meaning that would be for that reason a very old Protoslavic one), we find the second cognate "*людина*", opening bridge to "*люд(и)*", a distinct plural form for *man* which exists in all Slavic languages. *Людына* does not exist (and never existed) in Russian at least, which means that it developed in Ukrainian independently (apparently, from the plural "*люди*") after Eastern Slavic split in the XIII-XIV centuries.


----------



## Maja

Kolan said:


> This is true for standard Ukrainian (чоловiк = husband), while людина (spelling людына in Russian) is человек (a Russian cognate for човек). Людина (ukr.) is feminine grammatically and applies to both sexes.


 Hmmm, so interesting... *ljudina* (људина) is used in Serbian as a compliment for describing a man with outstanding qualities: very good person (honest, with a sense of honor etc.) and also someone with big constitution (great height and broad back  ).


Zerdav said:


> I do not agree with Duya, maybe he uses the word _čovjek_ as a male being (muškarac), but I would never use it in such a context and haven't heard others use it.


 Really? Interesting, because I would almost always use *čovek* as Duya explained here:


Duya said:


> _Dao sam knjigu čovjeku_. = I gave this book to a [male] man.
> _Čovjek je racionalno biće. = _Human is a rational being.
> _Čovjek je gramziv_. = Human beings are greedy.
> _Taj čovjek je gramziv._ = That [male] man is greedy.


Unless I want to emphasize the gender for better understanding. But it really all depends on the context, like always!


----------



## WannaBeMe

Natabka said:


> Well, here I've found some more information on the topic:
> 
> It seems that NO ultimate etymology of this word can be established as it is "known to all other [than Ukrainian and Russian] Slavic languages" according to Berneker.
> 
> But if we could gather here the information about the etymology of this word (from ALL the Slavic languages), then maybe it will be possible to say for sure whether its meaning of "a man" comes from some specific languages or is, as Kolan suggests, "inherited directly from Ancient Eastern Slavic", or even from ? Ambitious task?
> 
> So, in Ukrainian the word "*чоловік*" is to be found from the times of Old Ukrainian:
> 
> OUk, OES* - *челов*ъ*к**ъ | члов*ъ*к**ъ*
> MUk** - *чолов*ъ*к**ъ*
> (according to "An Etymological Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language" by Rudnyc'kij)
> _________
> *OES - Old Eastern Slavic
> **MUk - Middle Ukrainian
> 
> As for the protoforms of this word, I have come across two versions:
> 
> 1) After Rudnyc'kij and Berneker:
> *čelověk**ъ - * _č__elo _- 'clan' and _v__ěk__ъ _- 'descendant'
> 
> 
> 2) After Fortunatov (what inimaginaible forms!):
> 
> *čölviekъ | čölъiekъ - * '_čöl_-' possibly connected with the root of the word '_челядь_'



*Čelověk / člověk* is related to lith. *cilveks*.
It consists of two parts *čelo* and *věk*.
*Čelo* is related with *čeljad* which would be colective noun for čelo. We can also bring čelo in relation to lith. *kiltis*- clan, genus also sankskrit *kulam*-clan, herd.
*Vek* is related with lith. *vaikas *and latv. *vaiks* - child.

So *čelovek/ človek* would mean originaly *child of clan*.

*Ljudi* is very old. It exists in almost every Slavic, Germanic and Baltic language in the same meaning and similar shape and comes from IE *leudhos*.
Slavic- *ljudi*,  Lithuanian.-*liaudis*, German- *leute* , Middle High German- *liuti*, Old English-*leod*.

But *čeljad* and *ljudi* are not related to eachother directly. It seems only because of če*ljad* and *ljud*i but its only a coincidence. *čel* + colective ending -*jad * gives *čeljad* but *ljud*- is a stem, so its obvious.

Original Slavic noun for a man or male is *muž* which has the same etymology as German Mann and Old-German- *mang* if we think of the old nasal u in muž. *Muž<<<monž<<<monžis<<<mongis*.


----------



## Natabka

WannaBeMe said:


> *Ljudi* is very old. It exists in almost every Slavic, Germanic and Baltic language in the same meaning and similar shape and comes from IE *leudhos*.
> Slavic- *ljudi*,  Lithuanian.-*liaudis*, German- *leute* , Middle High German- *liuti*, Old English-*leod*.
> 
> But *čeljad* and *ljudi* are not related to eachother directly. It seems only because of če*ljad* and *ljud*i but its only a coincidence. *čel* + colective ending -*jad * gives *čeljad* but *ljud*- is a stem, so its obvious.
> 
> Original Slavic noun for a man or male is *muž* which has the same etymology as German Mann and Old-German- *mang* if we think of the old nasal u in muž. *Muž<<<monž<<<monžis<<<mongis*.




WannaBeMe, you've mentioned one interesting word here! It seems to me the word "*muž*" wasn't discussed yet? I mean, in relation to "*člověk*". 

In Ukrainian we also have these words:

*люди *(pl.), *люд *(sing.) - both collective and both meaning "people" (Kolan has mentioned "людина")
*
муж *(definitely, a person of a male sex only; quite old-fashioned now)

So, what do you say, WannaBeMe, is it possible that words like "*ljudi/людина"*(people/person)and *"**muž" *(man) are the primary words for these notions (in brackets) and the word *čeljad* and hence *člověk *(I guess, I mix the languages, but the idea is understood, right? ) have acquired the meanings "person"/"man"/"husband" later? If to analyze the meaning of "*čeljad*/челядь" and this meaning of "*чоловік*" in Ukrainian (see above) - 4)a peasant (old-fashioned), I'd say it has something in common.


----------



## WannaBeMe

Natabka said:


> WannaBeMe, you've mentioned one interesting word here! It seems to me the word "*muž*" wasn't discussed yet? I mean, in relation to "*člověk*".
> 
> In Ukrainian we also have these words:
> 
> *люди *(pl.), *люд *(sing.) - both collective and both meaning "people" (Kolan has mentioned "людина")
> 
> *муж *(definitely, a person of a male sex only; quite old-fashioned now)
> 
> So, what do you say, WannaBeMe, is it possible that words like "*ljudi/людина"*(people/person)and *"**muž" *(man) are the primary words for these notions (in brackets) and the word *čeljad* and hence *člověk *(I guess, I mix the languages, but the idea is understood, right? ) have acquired the meanings "person"/"man"/"husband" later? If to analyze the meaning of "*čeljad*/челядь" and this meaning of "*чоловік*" in Ukrainian (see above) - 4)a peasant (old-fashioned), I'd say it has something in common.


 
Yes Natabka it is possible. 
The words *muž* and *žena* have had primary the aspects of sex, which can be seen well from derivations (for example SerboCroatian) of theese words like *muškarac*-_male of human race_ and *mužjak- *_male of an animal specius_, and like *žena*- _female of human race_ and *ženka*- _female of an animal specius. _
At least in Serbian - muž and žena have become also assotiated with marriage, the meaning of man and wife. 
But also *človek* (Srb.-čovek) has became assitiated with marriage through the maening of *husband*. 
Anyway the main človek's maening is still raferred to a human as a being or as part of a collective (like the ancient maening says "a child of a clan". 

Example, in football teams, for a person from your your team we say "_naš čovek_" or in the war we say "_ranili su našega čoveka_- our man has been injured".
I think that človek assotiats not so much to a female being as a part of a collective because of patriarchy, only males were considered as a fixed part of a clan and females wandered all around to other clans in the past or they had been considered as belonging to a man.
The same thing happend to German languages, too, so there must be a connection somewhere.

And that *čelovek *primary had the meaning of _a member of a collective_ shows us *čeljad*. Namely, čeljad has an other maening than *ljudi*. Čeljad maens a group inside of a group or clan. Like this čeljad and that čeljad but all togather they are ljudi.

It is all a little bit confusing but I hope you can understand what I mean.


----------



## Natabka

WannaBeMe said:


> ...
> 
> Example, in football teams, for a person from your your team we say "_naš čovek_" or in the war we say "_ranili su našega čoveka_- our man has been injured".
> I think that človek associates not so much to a female being as a part of a collective because of patriarchy, only males were considered as a fixed part of a clan and females wandered all around to other clans in the past or they had been considered as belonging to a man.
> The same thing happened to German languages, too, so there must be a connection somewhere.
> 
> ....
> 
> It is all a little bit confusing but I hope you can understand what I mean.



Yep, I do understand. I think, I support your version .
And, well, again you've touched a curious topic: these phrases you've mentioned, they exist in Ukrainian too and, I suppose, in a number of other Slavic languages, but in in Ukrainian we use the word "людина" in them!
So we say like "своя людина", or, what is more frequent, "свій" (posessive pronoun) - "він - свій/вона - своя".


----------

