adult female human," late Old English wimman, wiman (plural wimmen), literally “woman-man,” alteration of wifman (plural wifmen) “woman, female servant” (8c.), a compound of wif “woman” (see wife) + man “human being” (in Old English used in reference to both sexes; see man (n.)). Compare Dutch vrouwmens “wife,” literally “woman-man.”
Yeah buddy. That doesn’t say it means or has ever meant wifeman. Woman has always, from its first use up to now, meant a female human. So you read things and then interpret them as having whatever meaning you like?
“Wif = wife / man = mankind. Literally the wif of men”
It meant no such thing, ever. Wif didnt mean wife when this word was created. It meant what we now mean by the word woman. And the word wifman in today’s language would mean woman-person. It’s right there in the article you linked that you are unable to understand, or quite possibley, chose to misunderstand.
You have no idea what your talking about. It is not and never was a compound word of wife and man. The word wif meant the same thing as the modern day word woman. The word wifman was a compound word that would be translated into modern English as woman-person, with the exact same meaning as woman is used to today. It had nothing at all to do with being married. I’ve read the comment chain, where you say, repeatedly, that the word woman originates with a meaning related to marriage. It doesn’t, at all. You do not understand what you are reading.
No, it was wif - man. I offered a source, an indignant nuh uh is not a source so how about you go and get one.
adult female human," late Old English wimman, wiman (plural wimmen), literally “woman-man,” alteration of wifman (plural wifmen) “woman, female servant” (8c.), a compound of wif “woman” (see wife) + man “human being” (in Old English used in reference to both sexes; see man (n.)). Compare Dutch vrouwmens “wife,” literally “woman-man.”
early 14c., female, femele, “woman, human being of the sex which brings forth young,” from Old French femelle “woman, female” (12c.), from Medieval Latin femella “a female,” from Latin femella “young female, girl,” diminutive of femina “woman, a female” (“woman, female,” literally “she who suckles,” from PIE root *dhe(i)- “to suck”).
Which one seems to you to be more sexist and therefore dehumanizing? The one who’s derived from the concept of a wife as property or the one based on Latin for basically can breastfeed.
That’s is literally it’s origin, I’m sorry facts are offensive to you.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/woman
Takes three seconds to look up bud.
Yeah buddy. That doesn’t say it means or has ever meant wifeman. Woman has always, from its first use up to now, meant a female human. So you read things and then interpret them as having whatever meaning you like?
You’re a bafoon. Quote where I said it meant wife man or in any way departed from the cited evidence.
You don’t know what you’re talking about, that’s ok.
“Wif = wife / man = mankind. Literally the wif of men”
It meant no such thing, ever. Wif didnt mean wife when this word was created. It meant what we now mean by the word woman. And the word wifman in today’s language would mean woman-person. It’s right there in the article you linked that you are unable to understand, or quite possibley, chose to misunderstand.
That’s how a compound word becomes a thing, yes. You’re not making the point you think you’re making bud.
You should read the comment chain instead of cherry picking and assuming you know what I meant with your limited context and outward hostility.
You have no idea what your talking about. It is not and never was a compound word of wife and man. The word wif meant the same thing as the modern day word woman. The word wifman was a compound word that would be translated into modern English as woman-person, with the exact same meaning as woman is used to today. It had nothing at all to do with being married. I’ve read the comment chain, where you say, repeatedly, that the word woman originates with a meaning related to marriage. It doesn’t, at all. You do not understand what you are reading.
No, it was wif - man. I offered a source, an indignant nuh uh is not a source so how about you go and get one.
Compare that to female.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/female
Which one seems to you to be more sexist and therefore dehumanizing? The one who’s derived from the concept of a wife as property or the one based on Latin for basically can breastfeed.
Property v fucking life creator
Yet you didn’t bother to read it…
In what way boss. Vague answers aren’t a thing worth giving in this context, you’re not a yogi just say what you mean.
It’s only vague because you can’t read.
I’ve already explained this all … but you can’t read…
Use a source bud, nuh uh don’t mean nothin.
You’re the source. You post crazy shit. So you’re crazy.
Really not hard…
You’re the source. You post childish douchebaggy conments. So you’re a douchebag.
Really not that hard.
Yep. That’s the point. That’s the rational way to approach irrational people.
You inserted yourself into a conversation not me so the hubris and feigning indignantion is straight up moronic.