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.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective