• @Madison420
    link
    English
    -15 months ago

    That’s is literally it’s origin, I’m sorry facts are offensive to you.

    https://www.etymonline.com/word/woman

    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.”

    Takes three seconds to look up bud.

    • @Bertuccio
      link
      English
      15 months ago

      Yet you didn’t bother to read it…

      • @Madison420
        link
        English
        05 months ago

        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.

        • @Bertuccio
          link
          English
          15 months ago

          It’s only vague because you can’t read.

          I’ve already explained this all … but you can’t read…

          • @Madison420
            link
            English
            05 months ago

            Use a source bud, nuh uh don’t mean nothin.

            • @Bertuccio
              link
              English
              15 months ago

              You’re the source. You post crazy shit. So you’re crazy.

              Really not hard…

              • @Madison420
                link
                English
                05 months ago

                You’re the source. You post childish douchebaggy conments. So you’re a douchebag.

                Really not that hard.

                • @Bertuccio
                  link
                  English
                  15 months ago

                  Yep. That’s the point. That’s the rational way to approach irrational people.

                  • @Madison420
                    link
                    English
                    05 months ago

                    You inserted yourself into a conversation not me so the hubris and feigning indignantion is straight up moronic.

    • @Kethal
      link
      English
      1
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      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?

      • @Madison420
        link
        English
        -15 months ago

        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.

        • @Kethal
          link
          English
          1
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          “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.

          • @Madison420
            link
            English
            15 months ago

            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.

            • @Kethal
              link
              English
              15 months ago

              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.

              • @Madison420
                link
                English
                -1
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                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.”

                Compare that to female.

                https://www.etymonline.com/word/female

                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.

                Property v fucking life creator