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.
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
On the eve of the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) made a statement that provoked unprecedented repudiations among the European diplomats in Taipei. Chu said during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting that what President William Lai (賴清德) has been doing to the opposition is equivalent to what Adolf Hitler did in Nazi Germany, referencing ongoing investigations into the KMT’s alleged forgery of signatures used in recall petitions against Democratic Progressive Party legislators. In response, the German Institute Taipei posted a statement to express its “deep disappointment and concern”