Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ptsfa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaero!pesnta!amd!dual!ptsfa!rob
From: rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo)
Newsgroups: net.nlang,net.women
Subject: Re: Gender-specific neuter pronouns
Message-ID: <442@ptsfa.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 25-Jan-85 16:27:55 EST
Article-I.D.: ptsfa.442
Posted: Fri Jan 25 16:27:55 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 29-Jan-85 22:54:21 EST
References: <437@ptsfa.UUCP> <1285@bbncca.ARPA>
Organization: Pacific Bell, San Francisco
Lines: 19

> 
> Note, however, that "homo" is the Latin noun for "human", and not for
> "male human".  English speakers tend to forget this vocabulary distinction,
> since our word "man" means both.  The Latin for "man" meaning "male human" is
> "vir".

I suspect you are right as far as Classical Latin is concerned. I
appreciate the information.

There is good reason to believe that "homo" came to mean "male human" 
after the Classical period and before Latin diverged into the separate
Romance languages since the modern Romance languages' each have their
word for "male human" derived from "homo". In none of the modern Romance
languages that I know did "vir" take a hold.
-- 


Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell, San Francisco, California
{ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob