@PugJesus to [email protected]English • 3 months agoCongratulations on Brooklyn's ruleimagemessage-square15arrow-up1449arrow-down111
arrow-up1438arrow-down1imageCongratulations on Brooklyn's rule@PugJesus to [email protected]English • 3 months agomessage-square15
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink7•3 months 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 Chimplinkfedilink6•3 months agoFun fact: my memory is shitty. Looks like you’re right except that “man” wasn’t gendered at the time.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink8•3 months 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.
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.