Earlier in my studies of Historical Linguistics and Classical Latin I hypothesized of Common-Slavic *muži "man" (alongside with Lithuanian žmuo, Latin homo, -inis, Old-English guma) to have descended from PIE root for "earth" *dhegh'- in the form of *dhgh'-m-ón "earthling" contradicting the contemporary explanation reasoning that the Common Slavic word was a borrowing from Germanic *man- but failing to explain the /ž/ element in it /ref. Machek: Slovak and Czech Etymological Dictionary, 1975/.
Now, I wonder what the modern PIE etymology has to say about this, whether it's been resolved for good in the meantime, and what is the current state of affairs. Was I right back then?
According to Ranko Matasović (2010), the etymological treatment of Proto-Slavic *mąžь ‘man, husband’ (OCS mąžь, Russ. muž, Cz. muž, Pol. mąż, Croat. mûž, Bulg. măž, etc.) in etymological dictionaries of Slavic is not satisfactory. Although a connection with Skr. mánu- ‘man’, OHG mann ‘id.’ seems promising at first sight, a proto-form such as *mong(w)-yo- appears quite ad hoc, especially since the suffix *g(w)-yo- is otherwise unknown in Slavic nominal derivation. Pointing out the parallelism with the suffix in Lith. žmogùs ‘man’, which appears to be somehow derived from žmuo͂ ‘id.’, does not help, either, since the exact derivation of the Lithuanian word is unknown. An alternative etymology, explaining the formation of both žmogùs and *mąžь, would clearly be welcome.
For more, see:
Ranko Matasović: The loss of *g before *m in Proto-Slavic, Raspr. Inst. hrvat. jez. jezikosl., knj. 36/2 (2010.), str. 299–306
http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/101364
The mixing up of words for "earth" and "servant" presented in the article sounds interesting. There's the other Slavic word Cz. chlap "man", which once was thought to have meant "servant" originally and to be somehow related to Common Germanic to help and Lith. šelpti.
I'm not up to date in this, too, though.
Dear Michal
I think the word muzi (I wonder what its pronunciation is; is it sh or zha (as in Russian zha or French J (I Think) is related to the word moustache (pronounced as mush, isn't it), a masculine feature. The Iranian word mushki may also be related; after all the male sexual sexual organ does get hard and painful when aroused, and does have moustache like (ie muzi) like hair. All these are possibly derived from the Sanskrit (and Malayalam) mooshik, or rat. The male organ can be euphemistically (or dysphemistically!) compared to a Rat which is played around by the female organ, the cat, and killed by it. In some places (Including Kerala, my place) whores/females in general are called cats, isn't it, (no offence intended). And there were indeed many connections between Ancient Kerala and Europe.
Narayanan
There are excellent etymological dictionaries of several Slavic languages, e.g of Russian by M. Vasmer (in German and Russian), of Czech and Slovak by V. Machek, etc. It is meaningful to use the dictionaries compiled by real specialists.
Thanks for your suggestion. I consulted Machek and Vasmer dictionaries on number of occasions. To this point however, it does not bring anything new.
Dear Michal
When two languages come into contact, words from one will enter the other. It may happen sometimes that the the word may get altered in the donor language and the reason for that word may be forgotten, but be retained in the recipient with meaning discernible.
As my paper uploaded in (comparative r-t change) RG shows, there has been a lot of contact betwen Europe and Kerala, with contact changes in Malayalam; Malayalam could have been a route of spread between I-E languages and Sanskrit too. Unfortunately Historical Linguistics has not delved into this.
When existing information and theories cannot explain something, new theories has to be considered. Your doubt is such a matter.
My suggestion was based on the possible theory I presented. Ask yourself if the explanation is logical and decide yourself if it is possible.
Narayanan
The Slavic word muž (muzh), Old Slavic monžь is akin to English man and German Mann.
Old English man, mann "human being, person (male or female); brave man, hero; servant, vassal," from Proto-Germanic *manwaz (cognates: Old Saxon, Swedish, Dutch, Old High German man, German Mann, Old Norse maðr, Danish mand, Gothic manna "man"), from PIE root *man- (1) "man" (cognates: Sanskrit manuh, Avestan manu-, Old Church Slavonic mozi, Russian muzh "man, male").
Sense of "adult male" is late (c. 1000); Old English used wer and wif to distinguish the sexes, but wer began to disappear late 13c. and was replaced by man. Universal sense of the word remains in mankind and manslaughter. Similarly, Latin had homo "human being" and vir "adult male human being", but they merged in Vulgar Latin, with homo extended to both senses. A like evolution took place in Slavic languages, and in some of them the word muž (muzh has narrowed to mean "husband." PIE had two stems: *uiHro "freeman" (source of Sanskrit vira-, Lithuanian vyras, Latin vir, Old Irish fer, Gothic wair) and *hner "man," a title more of honor than *uiHro (source of Sanskrit nar-, Armenian ayr, Welsh ner, Greek aner, Albanian njeri).
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=man
Hello Wolfgang,
are there any analogies where we have -u- stems with -(s)yo-suffix becoming voiced in Common Slavic? And is that related to PIE *man- (Lat. manus, OldNorse mund "hand, protection"?
To sum up, there are two possible etymologies:
1) *dhgm-on-yo- an -n- stem from *dheg- "earth" as pointed out by Caka and myself. This needs ž to be explained by metathesis. There's also the Matasovic law of g lost before m issue. Lithuanian etymology would be helpful.
Possible cognates: Lat. homo, Germ. guma, Lith. žmuo
2) *man-u-syo- originally a derivative from *man- "hand" (?) as in Machek, which needs ž to be explained through voicing.
Possible cognates: OldInd. manusya, Germ. manwaz, Lat. manus
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Philology
- Language