@PugJesus to [email protected]English • 16 hours agoCongratulations on Brooklyn's ruleimagemessage-square16arrow-up1370arrow-down19
arrow-up1361arrow-down1imageCongratulations on Brooklyn's rule@PugJesus to [email protected]English • 16 hours agomessage-square16
minus-squareExecutive Chimplinkfedilink2•6 hours agoFun fact, woman and man come from different roots. So while it might have the letters of man in it, it doesn’t have man exactly.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink3•4 hours agoThat doesn’t sound right… From what I remember “woman” comes from “wifman”, which is a compound of “wif” and “man”, and back then “man” still refered to male and female persons, and “wer” and “wif” were male and female persons respectively.
minus-squareExecutive Chimplinkfedilink3•3 hours agoFun fact: my memory is shitty. Looks like you’re right except that “man” wasn’t gendered at the time.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink4•3 hours ago except that “man” wasn’t gendered at the time. But I included that, didn’t I? and back then “man” still refered to male and female persons Or do you mean rather than male and female, I should have said persons regardless of gender? I guess that makes more sense.
Fun fact, woman and man come from different roots. So while it might have the letters of man in it, it doesn’t have man exactly.
That doesn’t sound right…
From what I remember “woman” comes from “wifman”, which is a compound of “wif” and “man”, and back then “man” still refered to male and female persons, and “wer” and “wif” were male and female persons respectively.
Fun fact: my memory is shitty. Looks like you’re right except that “man” wasn’t gendered at the time.
But I included that, didn’t I?
Or do you mean rather than male and female, I should have said persons regardless of gender? I guess that makes more sense.
Fun fact: I can’t fucking read either.