Re: USAGE: WOMYN (was: RE: [CONLANG] Optimum number of symbols,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Raymond Brown" <ray.brown@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: USAGE: WOMYN (was: RE: [CONLANG] Optimum number of symbols,


> At 9:30 pm +0100 25/5/02, And Rosta wrote:
> >Tom Wier:
> [snip]
> >
> >"man" and "woman" are unique in pluralizing "men", "women", so the
> >resemblance is morphological as well as phonological. Indeed, for
> >this reason it is tempting to analyse "woman" as cranberry morph
> >"wo-" + morpheme "man". I reckon that is how most speakers perceive
> >things too, and likewise for "male:female".
>
> This has been my perception of the way the 'person in the street' regards
> them also.
>
> These follow the
> >widespread pattern in English (and Esperanto...) of forming the
> >feminine by adding something to the masculine -- clearly a
> >reflection of markedness principles rather than archetypes of
> >anatomy.
>
> ...with, of course, the notable exception of 'widower' where the masculine
> is formed adding to the unmarked feminine 'widow' - a grim reminder that
> males tend to meet their maker before their wives do.
>
Bridegroom, too.

Reply