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.

Ray.


=======================================================
Speech is _poiesis_ and human linguistic articulation
is centrally creative.
                                 GEORGE STEINER.
=======================================================

Reply