Jump to content

Talk:Eunuch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Masculinity (talk | contribs) at 09:10, 22 February 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

This page is continously being added with unsubstantiated assertions to push an agenda

There is a particular editor who keeps putting in unsubstantiated and misleading text to push his contention that the term Eunuch in ancient world used to refer to 'homosexuals.' The entire article is full of references to 'lack of male-female penetration capability' (when what is meant in the ancient texts was simply lack of 'penetration') and 'lack of desire for sex with females' (when the ancient document only referred to lack of desire for sex, or meant something else altogether). Sometimes, references are also shown for some of these entries, but it is impossible for a layman to verify those entries with the references provided. Since, this editor is known to misrepresent facts on his own website through distortion of historical texts, it is imperative that someone with more access to scholarly works clean up this article and make sure that this editor does not get to push his agenda again. (Masculinity (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

See also

"See also :
Unix"

...what
Please explain
82.226.253.72 (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The words "Eunuchs" and "Unix" have almost identical pronunciations; presumably the editor wanted to direct readers with poor spelling skills to their desired page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clingschor or Klingsor

In the In popular culture section I believe it is worth mentioning the character Clingschor from Wolfram's Parzival, a sorcerer who castrates himself to prevent him acting on his impure thoughts. The same character appears as Klingsor in Wagner's opera Parsifal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aodh Mordun (talk • contribs) 23:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spadone

I've reverted the split of this article into Eunuch (court official) and Spadone. Although there is some evidence for the usage of the Latin term "spadone" in English in a few sources, it does not appear in any of the English dictionaries I have access to. Nor does it appear to be in general use in medicine or general scholarship. I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence for it to be regarded as common usage, or "more correct" than the common English term "eunuch" which is also extensively used in academic and medical sources (as well as being the generally-used English translation for the Latin word spadone). -- The Anome (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Bible, the word 'eunuch' is used to refer to homosexual men

In the Bible, Matthew 19:12, the word 'eunuch' is used to refer to homosexual men (usually effeminate men). (Is the Bible Against Homosexuality?)

I removed the above text from the article, as it does not appear to be well-founded. All translations of this passage I can find use the word "eunuch" or an equivalent term, and discussions of the passage do not infer any association with homosexuality. The citation is hardly a scholarly source, and does not provide any evidence for its dubious assertions. ωεαşεζǫįδMethinks it is a Weasel 21:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added "Eunuchs and the Bible" back

I added the secion "Eunuchs and the Bible" back with additional references, including a Thesis with secondary resources backing up the point.

And in fairness I also included two links to people arguing the opposite point as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackal242 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, better than it was, but you're still using a couple of internet essays & claiming this as evidence for what "many believe". & Frankly, those are hardly objective & persuasive essays: they both start from a premise that the Bible is gay-friendly (something that many would disagree with) then go cherry-picking scraps of incidental evidence or areas of ambiguity that support their case.
I think there's a bit of a undue weight problem here, as this really is a fairly obscure viewpoint, & seems rather a tangent from the subject of eunuchs as defined in this article. For now I've left the section in but neutralised the language some. ωεαşεζǫįδMethinks it is a Weasel 23:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've also removed your comments from the article intro. A castrated man is the universally accepted definition of the English word eunuch in any dictionary. The fact that the Ancient Greek word for eunuch might have had other subtleties does not change the meaning of the word in English. ωεαşεζǫįδMethinks it is a Weasel 00:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah but the root of a word gives it contextual derivation and helps explain core understanding of the word and it's meaning. Perhaps you should read Etymology.  :) I'll see if I can find more references and add a "Etymology of the word" section. User:Jackal242 (talk) Sat Dec 19 12:44:26 EST 2009
What are you talking about? This article already has an etymology section. ωεαşεζǫįδMethinks it is a Weasel 18:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: If homosexual men were not included within the biblical category of Eunuchs, what word was used for them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.151.50 (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: There were no words used for homosexual men in bible, simply because the concept of a 'homosexual' is a modern western invention, and nothing comparable existed in the ancient or medieval world.(Masculinity (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Religious castration in Christianity

I adapted the passage about castration in the bible as this is somewhat taken out of context. The passage in the bible is about celibacy, not specifically about castration. So while I think the passage should stand, it is not saying that Christianity does not condone the practice of castration (enforce by the religion), but accepts people are eunuchs or have been castrated. Also I removed the section in the next paragraph suggesting a link between homosexuality and eunuchs in the bible. The passage in the bible which is reference is about celibacy and has no reference to sexuality. These are questions being asked of Jesus about marriage, divorce, and not being married. There is no reference to being gay, so I would suggest this has been added by someone with an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahamatwp (talk • contribs) 07:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-castrated eunuchs

The Digest's acknowledgment of anatomically whole eunuchs does not reflect Christian influence on the meaning of eunuch, since it is pagan, not Christian, legal scholars cited therein (Ulpian, Paulus, Modestinus) who distinguish between "spadones" as a general group (who could in general procreate, get married to women, and institute posthumous heirs) and "castrati" as a specific and in some ways anomalous subset of that group (who could not do those things). This is sufficient evidence that Ringrose is wrong when she says the meaning of eunuch was broadened by Christian thinkers to include anatomically whole eunuchs who refrained from sex with women. She is also wrong to suggest that ancient pagan thinkers saw gender as entirely a matter of genitalia. Aristotle, for instance, saw gender as a capacity determined by the heart, which was only reflected in the physical part needed to put that capacity into effect. See Aristotle, Generation of Animals, Book 4, Chapter 1 (765b - 766b). The physical part (the genitalia) is a necessary condition for one's gender, but it is no more sufficient for determining that a person is male or female than an eye is for determining that a person can see. The physical part can be present without the corresponding capacity to use it for its purpose (in this case: procreation) being necessarily present, and if the capacity is not there, neither is the characteristic. In other words, one can have a penis, but if it won't stand up for any women because of a constitutional factor, and thus cannot be used for procreation, then one is not "male," according to Aristotle's definition, because one lacks the capacity that defines maleness. Faris Malik (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the gender of a eunuch

Can someone with the language skills answer a question and add it to the page. In the classical languages, be it the Greek from with this page says 'eunuch' is derived from or Latin, state what gender does the word 'eunuch' has, and what was the rational for the gender classification of the word? I put eunuch in quotes simply to set it apart from the rest of the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.111.8 (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek words ευνουχος (gen.: ευνουχου) and σπαδων (gen.: σπαδοντος) both have masculine grammatical gender. The word ευνουχος is in the o-declension, which is mostly full of masculine and neuter nouns but also has female nouns. The -ος ending is most commonly found on masculine nouns in the o-declension, although there are also a number of feminine nouns that end in -ος. But adjectives and definite articles used with ευνουχος are marked with masculine gender, thus confirming that the word itself has masculine grammatical gender. The second word σπαδων is in the consonant declension, which is full of all three genders, but it is also masculine, as we can tell by the -ων ending in the nominative and by observing the forms of articles and adjectives used with it. As a noun referring to a non-female human being, it would be quite unusual for it to have feminine or neuter grammatical gender. I can't think of any examples of nouns for human beings that have neuter gender in Greek or Latin. Keep in mind, the word ανθρωπος ("human being") also has masculine grammatical gender even though it is applied to individuals (such as eunuchs!) or mixed-gender groups to which the ancient Greeks would not have applied the word male (ανηρ, ανδρος). The situation in Latin is analogous for the words eunuchus and spado. Faris Malik (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Faris Malik[reply]

Eunuchs are 'third genders,' a conglomeration of all the genders that are neither man nor woman.(Masculinity (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Paragraph about the reasons for historical castration

There should be a paragraph of the effects of castration & the thought of benefit when fulfilling functions that arent directly obvious, like military commander or courtier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.238.65 (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Often castrated...

While many Eunuchs were castrated it is entirely inaccurate to describe them as castrated across the board. Stating that Eunuchs are/were castrated by definition is not historically correct or factual. It is similar to saying "basketball players are black". Many are, but not all. I have repeatedly changed "A eunuch ( /ˈjuːnək/; Greek: "Ευνούχος") is a person born male who is castrated" to "A eunuch ( /ˈjuːnək/; Greek: "Ευνούχος") is a person born male who is often castrated" because it is far more accurate.

What are the consequences of castration?

There ought to be a section on the effects of being made a eunuch. Presumably there are more than just inability to reproduce and having a high singing voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.138.148 (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a medical report that says eunuchs live significantly longer than non-castrated males: "We studied the genealogy records of Korean eunuchs and determined the lifespan of 81 eunuchs. The average lifespan of eunuchs was 70.0 ± 1.76 years, which was 14.4–19.1 years longer than the lifespan of non-castrated men of similar socio-economic status. Our study supports the idea that male sex hormones decrease the lifespan of men." The lifespan of Korean eunuchs, Kyung-Jin Min1, Cheol-Koo Lee2 and Han-Nam Park; Current Biology, Volume 22, Issue 18, R792-R793, 25 September 2012. Where would this fit in the article? Raquel_Baranow (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the longer lifespans could in part relate to the effeminate, or womanly lifestyle they lead. Flight Risk (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding: Eunuchs in Indian Hindu sultanates (before Mughals)

Those sultanates were not Hindu, they were Muslim. This section even goes on to mention Alauddin Khilji specifically, he was a Muslim. Malik Kafur was a Hindu Rajput boy who was then converted to Islam and made eunuch. The Delhi Sultanate was Muslim. The term "Sultanate" itself is also a key hint as to the Islamic influence on the rulers and the other terms are Urdu terms as well. Please remove any references to the rulers and sultanates being Hindu in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedver (talk • contribs) 20:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotection

Sockpuppets of Borishuang have been posting things regarding "The title Eu. refers to a eunuch". Should this page be semiprotected to prevent this? Borishuang is a persistent block evader. Warrenkychu (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2015

27.251.158.66 (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with the references

Number 177 is bad - it links to an article by The Economist, which mentions "a study on eunuchs", giving no further information whatsoever. The original study cannot be found via this reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.159.163.191 (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the ref and it says what's in the article. Raquel Baranow (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Eunuch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intro sentence and the meaning of the word "eunuch"

I've now twice reverted changes made by 67.48.96.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They state that not every man who has been called a eunuch was not necessarily castrated, and therefore that eunuchs only may have been castrated. That is not the meaning of the word, and 67.48.96.13 is performing WP:SYN in attempting to adjust it.

The universally-agreed primary dictionary definition of the word "eunuch" is a man who has been castrated. Yes, the term has indeed sometimes been used for men who were not castrated, but this does not change the primary definition: this use is mentioned in the same paragraph in the lede, so this is already treated in the article.

Wikipedia policy requires that editors provide reliable sources for statements which are controversial. Well-established dictionaries are reliable sources for the meanings of words.

To @67.48.96.13: if you want to revert this again, please discuss this here before doing so. -- The Anome (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to discuss it here, but I'm leaving the current and accurate description where it is and where it has been since we did this in 2011. Your edit is not accurate. The definition in the dictionary is wrong and furthermore, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There was a giant discusssion on this page once upon a time and it was reduced to my statement above ("Often castrated"). Please stop editing out accurate information. Thank you. OpenSorce (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you settle for "has (in most cases) been castrated"? OpenSorce (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the intro to read "The term eunuch ... generally refers to a man who has been castrated..." I hope this is enough to satisfy everyone now. -- The Anome (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I briefly re-edited it before I noted this change. I've since removed that edit. I think this is closer to acceptable than it was before. OpenSorce (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Dog Bites?

The passage is unclear, and the second cited text only states "Many men became eunuchs mostly because of unfortunate accidents. It is well known that men who accidentally lost their sexual abilities became eunuchs during Joseon as well as Goryeo period. Goryeo-sa () states that "people had become eunuchs because their sexual organs were bitten by dogs" (69), directly indicating the main reason of men becoming eunuchs; eunuchs were mainly created by accidents." There are some confused Reddit posts linking to this portion, but from what I gather most eunuchs, prior to their popularity, were victims of accidents such as dog bites - rather than dog biting being a popular method of creating eunuchs. The first article is behind a paywall, so I will refrain from editing this portion, but some clarification might be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.115.176 (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Eunuch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eunuch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2017

Having researched and actually verifying the entire section labeled Coptic Involvement, there is simply no basis in truth for the entire section. It is derogatory to an entire religious group as they did not practice these actions. The source documentation states that the clergymen lived as if they were eunuchs; "A figure of speech also crept into use in which certain persons for religious reasons are said to have "eunuchized" themselves, who, in the opinion of commentators, underwent no mutilation, but merely lived in total celibacy, like eunuchs, as in the third class mentioned in Matthew, 19, 12. This habit of broadening the definition of words at the expense of their precision is a linguistic trait of oriental countries."

I am UNAMBIGUOUSLY requesting that the entire section be verified, and if found to not be true, to be deleted in its entirety. Diesel4982 (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: There are numerous reliable sources cited. That is generally what on Wikipedia is considered to be verified. If you can find fault with the specific sources for specific statements feel free to continue discussion but I am not going to remove an entire section. Cannolis (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu ceremonies .. reference ?

Re. "However, they are integral to several Hindu ceremonies which is the primary form of their livelihood. They are a part of dance programs (sometimes Adult) in marriage ceremonies. They also perform certain ceremonies for the couple in Hindu tradition" .. I am familiar with Hindu weddings in India and this is incorrect. The reference (228) is inapplicable. Please provide a reference.Sooku (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Eunuch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong and unsourced information in the section "Non-castrated eunuchs"

The section on "Non-castrated eunuchs," contains several wrong and/ or unsourced information. They all suggest to convey the fallacy that in the ancient texts Eunuch is used for males who are impotent or otherwise non interested in procreation. This is pov pushed by a section of the lgbt, but it is wrong and unsourced.

The first such information claims to be sourced from Aristotle's Generation of animals, and quotes (or interprets) Aristotle as saying that the lack of faculty to procreate also renders a person to be a 'eunuch.' I researched the net thoroughly and failed to find any such mention in that particular work. The information is not cited. The second such information gives a citation (link) and claims that this 'broad' definition of eunuch is also contained in the compendium of ancient Roman laws collected by Justinian I in the 6th century known as the Digest or Pandects. The link given is: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%2344853

I researched the Pandects and it contains no such provision. The link provided only gives the definition of Spandon. Apparently, Spandon may be used for impotents and eunuchs both, but nowhere does it say that Eunuch can be used for impotents. All A's include B's and C's doesn't mean B's and C's are the same.

The rest of the text is also based on the false assumption that spandones and eunuchs are one. If All B's are A's, it doesn't mean all A's are B's.

Therefore, I am deleting the texts. Please give a proper citation if someone feels these texts need to be there. (Masculinity (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eunuch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted ungrammatical word string with reference to a 3rd gender, having no source, reliable or not.

I am reminded of the very humorous discourse in Plato's Symposium where the character Aristophanes (if I recall correctly) gives an explanation of sexual attraction of 3 types, but I don't think eunuch was one of the types. The dialogue goes on ending with Socrates as a speaker who exhibits no sexual itch at all, apparently a Platonic ideal, but he is not assigned the label as a 3rd gender. (We don't forget that the whole dialogue is humorous and not intended to be a treatise on gender, but more likely the minutes of a philosophical bull session.

There is this sentence, also, in the article which requires clarification: "But this is sometimes generalized to mean that eunuch may be used for impotent males, which is a fallacy." The pronoun "this" has no clear antecedent. Was the term "fallacy" the best term for this sentence? (PeacePeace (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

According to some laws Eunuch cannot be considered as "male human"

"refers to a man" is not correct. D1gggg (talk) 09:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some papers (correctly IMO) consider them not as males or females but as another option: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2012.681178
This is far from useless debate: it matters when law and regulations are gender-specific. D1gggg (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed paragraph disputing etymology

Which stated as follows:

"One major problem, however, with the derivation from eunē ("bed") is that, according to the rules of Greek vowel contractions (see crasis), the ou in eunoukhos requires an o-sound between the contracted words, specifically e+o, e+ou, o+e, o+ei, o+o or o+ou, and cannot feature an a-sound there.[1] As an alpha-declension noun, eunē features the stem-vowel -a-, but an a-sound will not combine with any other vowels to produce the ou that occurs in eunoukhos. All words (other than eunoukhos anyway) that are formed by adding onto eunē have an a-sound or long e-sound in the combined syllable, as in eunater or eunēter ("bed-fellow"), eunaios ("in one's bed") or eunēthen ("from or out of bed").[2] By analogy, a compound between eunē and ekhein would be expected to come out as eunēkhos, or in English "eunech". Even if the form okhos ("carrier" or "holder") were compounded with eunē, as many dictionaries suggest, the stem-vowel a from eunē combined with the initial o from okhos would combine to form an omega, and the resulting word ("bed-carrier") would be expected to come out as eunōkhos, with the English word becoming "eunoch". On the other hand, the etymology offered by Eustathius (eunis + okheuein) would work only if eunis contributes an e-sound or o-sound to the compound. Unfortunately, there are no known compounds of eunis to use for comparison. Consequently, the rules of Greek vowel contraction at any rate favor the derivation from eunoos and ekhein ("having a well-disposed state of mind"). And in fact, other words that have the same ending -oukhos feature a stem-vowel o in the first word of the compound, such as skēptoukhos, rabdoukhos, lampadoukhos, ofioukhos and kleidoukhos.

Be that as it may, virtually all modern reference works cite the derivation from eunē and ekhein ("keeper of the bed")."

This is based on an incorrect/incomplete understanding of Greek synchronics. First-declension nouns do not retain their α/η in compounds (except in some rare cases such as ἀγγελιήφορος), but take an -ο- just like all other nouns. The listed words such as εὐναῖος are suffixed, not compounded; suffixed words do often (although not always) retain the stem vowel. Nor is ου instead of ω problematic; we regularly see ου in compounds of -οχος (as the paragraph even goes on to state); this is due to the original form *sokhos, where the *s dropped out and caused the vowels to contract. εὐνή + -οχος is just as phonologically plausible as εὖ + νόος + -οχος, and almost certainly more semantically plausible, which is presumably why it is adopted by most etymologists. ObsequiousNewt (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Smythe, Herbert Weir (1920). Greek Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. pp. 20–21.
  2. ^ Liddell, H.G. and R. Scott (1883). Greek-English Lexicon. New York: Harper & Brothers. pp. 607–608.

Orphaned references in Eunuch

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Eunuch's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA":

  • From Asexuality: Chasin, CJ DeLuzio (2015). "Making Sense in and of the Asexual Community: Navigating Relationships and Identities in a Context of Resistance". Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. 25 (2): 167–180. doi:10.1002/casp.2203. ISSN 1099-1298.
  • From Mongols: Janhunen, Juha (November 29, 2012). "1". Mongolian. John Benjamins Publishing Company. p. 11.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge lack of information of heir general lives

How did these people develop sexually, mentally and body wise? There is little information about how their bodies were different from those of other men, could they pass as regular men if they tried? Would an enuch be recognized by apperence alone?★Trekker (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eunuch&oldid=942056683"