From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Is there any relationship between the word "man" and the word "hu-man"? Thanks. --Eleassar777 12:10, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

no. man is from men-u-os (or similar), human is from gdhom-ion-os (or similar). Irish duine "man" is related to human, though. dab () 12:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


in the Romance languages, homme, uomo, hombre, homem etc. have all come to refer mainly to males, with residual generic meaning.

Actually, in Romanian, om mainly refers to human, not to male. Man (male) is bărbat (from barba = beard) Bogdan | Talk 21:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


this isn't a dictionary definition, it's a discussion of the word's complex etymological background. Also, it is an article about a rune, we have articles on all of the Elder Futhark runes (some of them stubs), see Template:Runes. dab () 17:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Man (word)[edit]

The discussion should currently be held at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ancient_Germanic_studies/Runes#Mannaz. --Holt (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

no, the discussion should be held here. The Wikiproject page can be used to draw the attention of interested editors to this page. At the page linked, you state
"New opinion: As there already exists a thorough article for the word and concept man at Man (word), I think a general explanation should be given in the Mannaz article, and that a {{main}} template should be added instead of having duplicated etymology sections."
Since the etymology discussion is the core of both articles, this will leave one of the articles as a "perennial stub" (a WP:DICT entry). I have no opinion in which direction the merge should go, but I do think a merge will be necessary. --dab (𒁳) 14:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright, holding it here is much better. I will post the discussion for reference. –Holt TC 14:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion is bound to cause irritation, because there are basic points where people might not agree with eachother. The rune articles all have a common purpose, to give a thorough explanation to the runes of the futharks. A rune has more than one aspect. The first thing you see is the shape. Although the shape may change based on time and place, it roughly stays the same. The second aspect is the phonetic value. As the shape, this may also change a bit depending on different factors, but in general this also stays much of the same. The third is the meaning of the rune. The issue here is how deep we are going to analyze the meaning. The case with *mannaz is very clear, in my opinion. *Mannaz means man, and was used as a general term for human being. The deeper etymology of the word man is not relevant here, it has no clear value to know that the Indo-Iranian word for man is manu, because the runes were used in the Germanic north. Having a wordy section on the etymology in the Mannaz article is like having a big section in the Berkanan article — of no great use. However, in articles where for example the reconstructed name is disputed, where the name is unclear, there is need for a good section providing different theories and so on. Split. –Holt TC 14:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

in this case, you are arguing that Man (word) should be the target article. I dont's see why we need an article just for saying "mannaz is the name of the m rune", that information is easily accommodated in the runes article. Now before redirecting Mannaz to Runes, I suggest it makes more sense to redirect it to Man (word), and mention the rune there. Avoid {{Duplication}}. I am sorry, but I fail to see why we need one article per rune. Berkanan essentially reproduces the relevant sections of the rune poems, and states that the b rune is called "Berkanan". Why do we need a standalone article just to repeat information that is already discussed in context in other articles? You will note that Berkanan has been classed as a {{writingsystem-stub}} since I created it in March 2005. Do you have any notion of how to expand it beyond its "perennial stub" status other than by merging? If you do, I will be glad to hear it, but stubs may still be turned into {{R with possibilities}} until somebody actually does expand them. Please. {{R with possibilities}} doesn't mean "this topic isn't worthy", it just means "nobody has compiled a full standalone article on this so far. You can read it up in context there" dab (𒁳) 14:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This seems to be a matter of principles, as I mentioned earlier. Wikipedia is supposed to be a wide covering encyclopedia, a work of reference. It is therefore important to sometimes take the place of the laymen and unitiated, who want to access information and knowledge as easy as possible. It really shouldn't matter if an article does not contain more than, let's say, a thousand letters, if it is informative and serves its purpose. If I wanted to know more about the b rune, I would like to read everything that concerns the rune, be it rune poems, interpretations or modern usage. This cannot be provided for every rune in one article, it would become too long.
"You will note that Berkanan has been classed as a {{writingsystem-stub}} since I created it in March 2005. Do you have any notion of how to expand it beyond its "perennial stub" status other than by merging?" – No, I do not. Neither do I understand why it is so important to have one lengthy and overfilled article, instead of several clear, smaller ones. The information is the same, whether it is in a long article or a short one. Splitting and merging is just a matter of having better order. And it is better order to have single rune articles.
Now, the point of this discussion is to reach a compromise, do you have a constructive suggestion for what to do? –Holt TC 15:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved: 2 yes / 1 no after 27 days, and I found that a history-merge was needed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Mannaz runeMannaz – The article was previously at Mannaz, which is now just a redirect to this article. Appending "rune" to the end is an unnecessary disambiguation (over-precision should be avoided). relisting Andrewa (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC) - SudoGhost 19:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Sudo. The problem is that there's also Man (word), the Proto-Germanic form of which is, of course, *mannaz. Then there's Mannus, as mentioned in Germania, which is simply a Latinized form of Proto-Germanic *mannaz. I think we need a disambiguation page to keep these things sorted, and that this page should stay as "Mannaz rune". :bloodofox: (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Bold as I am, I went ahead and made one. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as proposed. The other related terms on the disambiguation page aren't ambiguous with "mannaz". -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, all may be sought after when looking for *mannaz. Afrer all, they are all *mannaz. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
    True, but this is only one that is commonly referred to primarily as such, this one is *mannaz, the others are also referred to as mannaz. While the other articles are possible uses of the term, this article is the primary topic. The other uses can be given at Mannaz (disambiguation), with a hatnote at the top of this article pointing to the disambiguation page. - SudoGhost 12:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
    Bloodofox, this is not about *mannaz, but after all of course about the title "Mannaz" in the English-language Wikipedia. The others aren't even referred to as "mannaz", but are related to the Proto-Germanic "*mannaz". -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
    Jhunter, you seem to be misunderstanding something. All of these subjects are known as *mannaz (Proto-Germanic 'human being') depending on the context; the rune, the mythical figure, and the Proto-Germanic form of man. The asterisk should always be used when referring to *mannaz (including here), as it's a reconstructed form (Proto-Germanic is nowhere attested), but for some reason we're not using it in the title here. Scholarly works will always use it. All three of these subjects are "obscure", and none take any precedence over the other. A disambiguation clearly outlining these things is necessary. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
    This one does take precedence over the others, because the others are not referred to as mannaz by WP:COMMONNAME, whereas this one is. - SudoGhost 15:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
    BLoodfo, I understood all of that. You could create *mannaz if you think it's needed for disamiguating "*mannaz". As SudoGhost said, though, "mannaz" in English (without the asterisk) is not ambiguous. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
    Well, let me propose that this rune is in fact best known as "*mannaz". Sure, there's been a fair amount of pop culture stuff out there and some neopagan material of various stripes on runology—where in both cases the asterisk is generally dropped—but those works are dwarfed by piles upon piles of academic works on runology published since the advent of the reconstruction of Proto-Germanic and the modern day conventions thereof. As a result, *mannaz is nowadays definitely the most commonly used term to refer to the Proto-Germanic rune, asterisk and all. This article should therefore really be at *Mannaz (rune). :bloodofox: (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
    I'd have no objections to that, if that's the consensus for this topic's common name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay. If it just goes straight to the rune article, whatever the name, we should be sure to put a hat note about Mannus and Man as well then. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Relisting. There are some things I don't understand:

  • Why aren't *mannaz or *Mannaz seriously considered as possible names? That's what the article lead currently calls the topic although it seems to be controversial [1], and it's argued above that this is the most common form of the name in reliable sources.
  • Why isn't there a heads-up at talk:Mannaz?
  • Or, for that matter, why was that talk page deleted?

There seems a lot going on. Andrewa (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the talk page redirect when I moved the dab page. I don't believe any non-redirect talk page here has been deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
OK. I note that the main namespace page in question, although a redirect, has a great deal of history. [2] Relisting hasn't produced any significant new material, where to from here? Andrewa (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as proposed. clearly main usage in Google Scholar and only meaning being used on en.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.