Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!aero-c!nadel From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: A question about "womyn" Message-ID: Date: 13 Mar 91 20:18:10 GMT References: <12039120:43:54WNR0@lehigh.bitnet> Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator) Organization: Berserkeley Lines: 30 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org In-Reply-To: WNR0@ns.cc.lehigh.edu's message of 13 Mar 91 11:28:53 GMT Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org > The derivation of the word 'woman' is literally 'wife of man'. ___ __ *Heavy*sigh*. The problem with etymology is that it's too _ easy for hypotheses and even wild-assed-guesses to sound plausible. "Wife of man" is an example of this, and while it's been made quite popular, it just isn't true. ___ __ There once was a time, way, way back, when "man" did not _ mean male. A female person was a "wyfman" and a male person was a "werman." "Wyfman" begat "woman" and "wife," and "werman" begat "werewolf." ___ __ Much later, readers and writers of English, who were over- _ whelmingly male, pitched the "wer-" prefix and started using "man" to refer to maile people. (And much later, of course, they attempted to resurrect "man" as a false generic term for either sex.) ___ __ The point is that the "man" in "woman" has nothing to do with _ males, nor relationships to same. ___ __ My understanding is that the word "womyn" was coined on the _ basis of this false etymology, and that once the error was pointed out it was decided to keep the term simply to assert separateness from men anyhow. > Even 'human' describes me in terms of a man. ___ __ *Heavier*sigh*. No, "human" comes from a whole 'nother root. _ And before anyone brings up the third popular etymological fallacy, "manual" has nothing to do with males either. <_Jam_>