Not a big deal to me, you can just say Person in that context if you don't know the gender, or "They", if you're dealing with anything academic, it's ok to say Human.
They works fine for me if I'm not specifying gender, which I usually would when describing something.
Unfortunately I agree that the evolution of the language has meant that "wereman" now sounds like someone who transforms in the light of the full moon.
During the day he is a gangly nerdish weakling. But at night, he transforms into the walking ball of pure machismo that is... The Were-Man!
edited 22nd Mar '11 5:41:22 PM by TrapperZoid
Lv. 3 Genasi Wizard
Fun fact: Were means "half", wyf means "other half". And so two makes a whole.
And honestly, I don't care. Men and women of humankind works just fine for me.
The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.
WHARRGARBL
Isn't "wyfman" also the origin of the word "wife"?
We should go back to saying "That's my woman" instead of "That's my wife."
Oh My
I am like Barkey in this matter. Though I do at times call people Man woman persons because it amuses me.
If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan ChahNo. Singular they is fine.
| DA Page | Sketchbook |
@zoulza: I believe it's just "wyf" actually. Old English was a bit like German, you could glom words up more freely.
@Roman: Nobody's talking about "they", silly!
I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
WHARRGARBL
Ah, so does that mean "wyfman" means "wife-person"? Interesting 
"Female-person" actually.
I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
WHARRGARBL
So "wife" does come from a generalized term meaning "woman"?
The Odd Lad
Doesn't really fit the flow of the modern English language. Seem's silly I know.
Life's Gonna Suck When You Grow Up... But Is It That Great Now?... Also I'm Skylark2 now.
Gristknife
I don't think we should go back to it, but I certainly wish we hadn't gotten away from it.
Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.
I really don't think it's possible to reverse time on a language like that. It's silly, but I think we're stuck with 'man' 'woman' 'person' and 'humankind'.
Some things you can adapt using other words, though. For example, we don't say 'policeman' or 'policeperson', we say 'police officer'.
edited 22nd Mar '11 8:18:27 PM by LoniJay
Be not afraid...
The Joke-Master
"We should go back to saying "That's my woman" instead of "That's my wife.""
Uh, why? As it stands we have a word for "female spouse" and a word for "female adult". It allows for more accurate and precise elucidation of relationships and characteristics. How is confusing the issue by eliminating a word and appending its meaning to another pre-existing word a good thing?
In Riastrad
I would enjoy that, yes. I do not think it would be easy, though.
Of course, there's already a running joke about my life being a Changeling Fantasy, so I am content to use "human" and "humans".
My name is Cu Chulainn. Beside the raging sea I am left to moan. Sorrow I am, for I brought down my only son.
watching down on us
A switch back to complete old english vocabulary. YESPLZKTHX. Can we start using old english-derived terms in place of latin and greek, too?
- Fun fax: Even in Middle English wife/wyf could have meant just "woman", ie, the Wyfe of Bath (who, by the way, is one of the most badass women in middle english literature.)
But unfortunately, yes, we have gone far too far from old english for a return to old english vocabulary to be in any way easy.
Also, I'm pretty sure that there were words that literally referred to a "married woman" and a "married man".
(Our word for "married man" actually means something along the lines of "master of the house", which isn't always the case.)
Dictionary dumping ahoy!
wife [] 1. geféra m, gemæcca1 m, f husband, ides* 2 f woman; (lawful) ~ ǽ f; 2. take a ~ wv/t1b wíf lǽdan; take to ~ sv/t4 niman1
husband [] ceorl* m, gemæcca1 m, f wife
edited 23rd Mar '11 3:37:23 AM by annebeeche
Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.
A not-so-quick backstory: In Old English, "man" was not gendered and meant what we mean today by "person". The words for "male person" and "female person" were "wereman" and "wyfman". Wyfman later evolved into woman; man got stolen to mean exclusively male and today the were- prefix is mostly used for lycanthropes.
But "person" is kind of an awkward word. Especially as an ending to words, it just adds an extra syllable to an already long words. Even in sentences it's a bit awkward: "The person went to the store and bought milk" sounds much less natural than "the man went to the store and bought milk". It's really not the kind of word we want for such an important concept.
So the topic is, if we could bring back the old sense of man and shift what we mean now by man back to "wereman", should we? And if we should, could we?
Also, since this is kind of the natural thread for this experiment, ITT "wereman" means man and "man" means person. I'm hoping it will at least be amusing, if it isn't practical.
I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1