|
|
|
|
|
by Blikkentrekker
1919 days ago
|
|
> Werman might be barking up the wrong tree but you do get wapman (literally penis man, same root as weapon) showing up alongside wifmann. That says nothing about how common it was or whether it was the preferred form over man, but it's something. I'm sure you are referring to “wæpnedmann”[1] here, which is quite a different word, and did survive as “weaponed man”, which does exist but it's number of attestations are low. The common words to refer to males and female humans simply seem to be “wer” and “wīf”; “wīf” is quite a bit more common than “wīfmann”, even during the middle English period. Your links are not accessible, by the way. [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/w%C3%A6pnedmann |
|
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dicti...
The quotations on the OED are in a similar Middle English time period from 950 to 1325, and the forms the OED lists are as follows:
Forms: Old English–Middle English wǽpman, wǽpnman, wǽpen-, wépenmon, Middle English wepman, ( Orm. weppmann), weopmonne, wepmon(ne, wapmon, wapman.
Etymology: Old English wǽpnman , < wǽpn weapon n. (= membrum virile ) + man man n.1 Compare Old English wǽpned adjective, male.
So it likely comes from 'wæpnedmann' but I couldn't find anything explicitly for that (or variations on spelling), maybe OE is a little too old for the OED or as you say maybe it just isn't that well attested, the closest I could find was the following:
OE tr. Alexander's Let. to Aristotle (1995) §29. 242 Ða gesawe we þær ruge wifmen, & wæpned men wæron hie swa ruwe & swa gehære swa wildeor [L. pilosos in modo ferarum toto corpore].