In the vast lexicon of the English language, where a significant portion of words are borrowed from other languages, “woman” stands out as a rare native term. Its roots can be traced back to Old English, where it was formed by combining wif (woman) and man (person), often spelled as wifman (literally “female person”).
Wif is the precursor to the word “wife.” That original meaning lingers in several contemporary English words, such as “housewife,” “midwife” (originally meaning “woman who is with the mother,” where “mid” is related to the German mit, meaning “with”) and “old wives’ tale” (originally referring to “stories told by old women”). Those terms are linguistic fossils preserving the Old English wif.
The “man” in “woman” originally meant “person,” applicable to both genders, but over time, it narrowed to mean “male person” and broadened to signify “humanity” or “all people.”
Given that Old English already had wif to denote “woman,” why was the seemingly redundant and illogical term wifman coined? Historical texts suggest that wifman originally referred to a “lady’s maid” or “servant.” Over time, wif became “wife,” and wifman turned into “woman.” That historical context imbues the term “woman” with a connotation of “ordinary,” while the “noble” woman is denoted as “lady,” which can be translated as “gentlewoman” or “madam.”
The distinction between “woman” and “lady” has long carried class implications, as evidenced by a sentence from the British literary and scientific journal The Athenaeum: “Defendant pleaded that the person described as a woman was in fact a lady.”
“Lady” carries an aristocratic air, signifying a woman of high birth, status and refinement. In Old English, it meant “bread kneader,” a role symbolizing female power and status in ancient times. Today, the capitalized “Lady” remains a title in British nobility, paired with “Lord.”
The evolution of “woman” from wifman led to some misconceptions. Some interpreted wifman as “wife-man,” implying that a woman’s value is tied to her husband and that a woman’s life is incomplete without a man. Others have speculated that “woman” derives from “womb-man,” equating womanhood solely with childbearing and reproduction. Those misconceptions have largely been dismissed, but the “man” in “woman” still causes confusion. It is essential to remember that in this context, “man” originally meant “person.”
To avoid the gendered implications of “-man,” feminists coined womyn in 1975, aiming to sever the linguistic tie to males. However, that neologism faced criticism within gender studies circles for being unnecessary, confusing and inadvertently exclusionary.
Reflecting contemporary trends, the Oxford English Dictionary included womxn in its March 2021 update, pronounced like “woman” in the singular and “women” in the plural. That term aims to avoid the embedded “man” and use “x” to signify inclusivity. However, womxn has been criticized as unnecessary and, paradoxically, exclusionary.
The original meaning of “woman” is “female person,” with wo- being a variant of “wife” (the modern sense of “wife” came later), and man originally meaning “person,” regardless of gender. The rise of gender consciousness and political correctness has inevitably impacted that English term.
Language evolves through trial and error, stumbling forward in its quest for progress. This International Women’s Day, we explore the etymology of “woman,” celebrating the rich history and evolution of a word that represents half of humanity. To all women, we honor your past, present and future.
Hugo Tseng holds a doctorate in linguistics, and is a lexicographer and former chair of the Soochow University English Department.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
The fallout from the mass recalls and the referendum on restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant continues to monopolize the news. The general consensus is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been bloodied and found wanting, and is in need of reflection and a course correction if it is to avoid electoral defeat. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has not emerged unscathed, either, but has the opportunity of making a relatively clean break. That depends on who the party on Oct. 18 picks to replace outgoing KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫). What is certain is that, with the dust settling
Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Shen You-chung (沈有忠) on Thursday last week urged democratic nations to boycott China’s military parade on Wednesday next week. The parade, a grand display of Beijing’s military hardware, is meant to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. While China has invited world leaders to attend, many have declined. A Kyodo News report on Sunday said that Japan has asked European and Asian leaders who have yet to respond to the invitation to refrain from attending. Tokyo is seeking to prevent Beijing from spreading its distorted interpretation of wartime history, the report
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view