PugJesus@lemmy.world to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 18 hours agoCongratulations on Brooklyn's rulelemmy.worldimagemessage-square16fedilinkarrow-up1378arrow-down111
arrow-up1367arrow-down1imageCongratulations on Brooklyn's rulelemmy.worldPugJesus@lemmy.world to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 18 hours agomessage-square16fedilink
minus-squareKazumaralinkfedilinkarrow-up4·6 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 Chimplinkfedilinkarrow-up3·5 hours agoFun fact: my memory is shitty. Looks like you’re right except that “man” wasn’t gendered at the time.
minus-squareKazumaralinkfedilinkarrow-up5·5 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.
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.