Writers can play various tricks with the ambiguities of the word, "man." Consider the following juxtapositions:
Man and Nature
Man and God
Man and Machine
Man and Woman
Suddenly, "Man" means male human beings, not human beings.
In Between Time and Timbuktu, Neil Armstrong's first words on the Moon are mercilessly parodied and, as part of this, they are attributed not to Armstrong but to "Man."
Succeeding Superman, several subsequent superheroes were called "-man" or, of course, "Woman." Alan Moore has a character misremember the Flash as "Flashman," who, of course, is the villain of Tom Brown's Schooldays and the central character of sequels by another author. Also in Moore's Watchmen, after the superhero, Ozymandias, has publicly unmasked and revealed his secret identity, a reporter reflects on this revelation by referring to Adrian Veidt as "Ozyman-" but then breaking off mid-word, thus effectively inventing a new superhero name. The superheroes had banded together as "Minutemen," despite the "Watchmen" of the title. (And a later superhero, Doctor Manhattan, had been a watchmaker.) (My emphases.)
All of this is a long-winded way of leading back to the fact that Poul Anderson plays with "-man" in The Byworlder. An alien comes from the direction of Sigma Draconis and therefore is called "the Sigman," plural: "Sigmans," not "Sigmen." Presumably, another Sigman could come and might play a more prominent role on Earth but, whatever s/he did, s/he would not be a man from Sig.
11 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
But I thought it made sense to refer to the non-human from Sigma Draconis as the "Sigman," meaning someone who came from those stars. Of course the plural would be "Sigmans," as the plural for "Terran" would be "Terrans."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course it makes sense but I am sure that Anderson was aware that the name suggested "Sig-man" before we realized that it was really "Sigma-n."
Paul.
Originally Old and early Middle English, like all early Indo-European languages (and Proto-Indo-European itself), had 3 terms for "human beings".
In Old English they were:
Wer -- male human beings in general
Wif -- female human beings in general.
Mann -- human beings in general without distinction of gender.
However, sometime in the 1200's, English changed:
Wif became "wife";
Wer dropped out of use except in fossil words like weregild and werewolf;
Mann became "man", which continued to mean 'human beings in general' but also 'male human beings in general'.
"Women" derives from a compound of about that time: wifman.
(In German, Mann still means human beings in general without distinction of gender.)
Before Sean says it, fascinating.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Ha! But I agree!
Mr. Stirling: But modern English still retains use of "man," "mankind," "men" as also meaning humans in general, without distinction of sex.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: yes, but it means -both- human beings in general, -and- male human beings... which causes confusion.
I think we should have kept the PIE three-fold vocabulary. Much more precise.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I don't think I ever had that trouble or confusion--not when you pay attention to context.
Some bits of PIE might be worth trying to bring back.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: though not all of them. For example, IIRC, PIE used the same word as meaning both "war" and "expedition to steal cattle".
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
A distinction without a real difference in those days. (Smiles)
But I agree!
Ad astra! Sean
The Irish epic is called "The Cattle Raid of Cooley," Tain Bo Cuailnge.
Kaor, Paul!
Very Proto-Indo-European!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment