From 'manu' to 'vir' and 'anthropos': How Indo-European Languages Say 'Human' vs. 'Male'

Across most Indo-European languages, there are (at least) two distinct words in play: one that means “a human being, a member of the species,” and a different one that means specifically “an adult male.” Latin has homo vs. vir, Greek has anthrōpos vs. anēr/andr-, Sanskrit has manuṣya / nara / puruṣa vs. vīra, and early Germanic had mannaz vs. weraz. English is the odd one out because it blurred the line and let man mean both “human in general” and “adult male,” while quietly dropping the old male-only word (wer, which survives basically only in werewolf). This article walks through the major Indo-European branches and shows how those two semantic tracks — “human” vs. “male” — developed, split, merged, or survived.

English is historically weird because it collapsed both meanings into man and let the specifically male word (wer) die off in normal speech. Other branches (Latin homo/vir, German Mensch/Mann, etc.) keep the semantic boundary explicit. That split is not just trivia — it leaks into law (“rights of man”), philosophy (humanitas vs. virtus), and modern technical vocabulary (anthropology, andrology). When you see a language with one common word for “human in general” and a different common word for “adult male,” you’re looking at a living fossil of an old Indo-European distinction.

---

PIE Roots for (Gendered) Male and (Non-Gendered) Human Being

PIE root (reconstr.)	Gloss	Typical descendants	Notes
**manu-, mon-	human being, “earthling; thinker”	Proto‑Gmc *mannaz → OE man; Goth manna; Skt manuṣya; Av. manuš	Often linked with thinking (men- ‘think’) and with Manu, archetypal “first man” in Indo‑Iranian myth.
**wiHrós / wiros	adult male, husband, hero	Lat vir; OIr fer; OE wer (in werewolf); Goth wair; Skt vīra (“hero”)	Strictly male; gives “virile, virtue (originally ‘manly excellence’).”
(Greek parallel)	species vs. male	anthrōpos (human) vs. anēr/andr‑ (male)	Greek doesn’t use manu‑ or wiros directly; it preserves the semantic split with different roots.

Think: human ≈ manu‑; male ≈ wiros. Greek implements the same distinction with anthro‑ vs andro‑ instead.

---

Etymology of “Man” in Various PIE Branches

Germanic (PGmc → OE/ON → Modern)

• Species word: PGmc *mannaz → OE man (human), ON maðr/maður, NHG Mensch (via a different formation), Eng man/human.
• Male word: PGmc *weraz → OE wer (obsolete except in werewolf), Gothic wair; later replaced by man/male in English and Mann in German (with Mensch handling “human”).
• Takeaway: Germanic started with the split, English later blurred it.

The “Common Man” Root: karlaz

A third Germanic root for “man” survives beside mannaz and weraz:

• Proto-Gmc karlaz → ON karl, OE ceorl → Eng. churl. Originally “free man”, it slid semantically toward “peasant” and then “rude fellow.” Meanwhile, the same root, through Latinized Carolus (Charlemagne), gave rise to royal titles in many languages: Lithuanian karalius, Polish król, Czech král — all meaning “king.”

One root, two destinies: the freeman became both the churl and the king.

Italic / Latin

• Species word: homo (from dʰǵhem‑ “earth” → “earthling”).
• Male word: vir (< PIE wiros). Derivatives: virilis, virtus (originally “manly excellence”).
• Takeaway: Latin keeps a clean species vs. male distinction.

Greek

• Species word: ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) → anthropology. (Etymology debated.)
• Male word: ἀνήρ (anēr), gen ἀνδρός (andr‑) → androgen, androgyny.
• Takeaway: Greek mirrors the semantic split with different roots.

Indo‑Aryan (Sanskrit)

• Species word: manuṣya “human,” nara “person/man (human)”.
• Male/heroic: vīra “man/hero” (< wiros). Also puruṣa “man/person” in ritual/philosophical registers.
• Takeaway: Sanskrit preserves both tracks and even multiple registers (mythic Manu, social nara, philosophical puruṣa).

Iranian (Avestan, later Persian)

• Species word: Av manuš “human.”
• Male/heroic: vīra‑ survives in names/poetic diction.

Celtic

• Male word: Old Irish fer “man” (< wiros). Modern Irish fear. Welsh gŵr (from the same root).
• Species word: Old Irish duine “person,” Welsh dyn “person/man” (species‑level in many contexts). (Exact PIE etyma are debated/branch‑internal.)
• Takeaway: Celtic clearly retains a vir/wer‑type male term and a separate generic person term.

Slavic (illustrative; roots differ)

• Species word: Russian человек (čelovek), Polish człowiek — not from manu‑; native Slavic formation meaning “person.”
• Male word: муж (muž), Polish mąż “husband/man” (Proto‑Slavic *mǫžь). Not from wiros but fills the male slot. Modern мужчина (mužčina) built on muž.
• Takeaway: Slavic shows the same semantic split but with different inherited roots.

---

Why English Is Weird (and why German isn’t)

• English generalized man to mean both “human” and “male,” and wer disappeared except in compounds (werewolf, wergild). Result: ambiguity (“Man is mortal” vs “a man”).
• German keeps Mensch (human) vs Mann (male). Clean.
• Icelandic preserves historic morphology (maður/maðurinn), showing the old nominative relic (-ʀ) and keeping the lexical split clearer in usage.

---

PGmc Morphology

• PGmc nominative endings **-az, -iz → Norse -ʀ/-r, giving forms like maðʀ/maður. That final -z was pronounced [z] in PGmc, later rhotacized to an r‑like sound in Norse.
• ON au is a diphthong (≈ English ow in now), not an umlaut.
• English were‑ in werewolf = male‑ (PGmc weraz + wulfaz → “man‑wolf”).

---

Etymology Cheat Sheet (Species vs. Male)

Here’s a table that outlines how both “human” (gender neutral) and “man” (male-specific) evolved:

Branch	Species‑level “human”	Male / gendered “man”	Notes
Proto‑Gmc	mannaz	weraz	two separate lexemes
English	man / human	man / male	split blurred; wer lost
German	Mensch	Mann	clean split
Old Norse	maðr/maður	karl (male), maðr (context‑dependent)	preserves nominative relic
Latin	homo	vir	textbook split
Greek	anthrōpos	anēr/andr‑	textbook split
Sanskrit	manuṣya / nara / puruṣa	vīra	multiple registers
Avestan	manuš	vīra‑	mirrors IA
Old Irish	duine	fer	clear split
Welsh	dyn	gŵr	clear split
Russian	čelovek	muž	different roots, same roles
Polish	człowiek	mąż (male; husband)	idem

Rule of thumb: If a language has two high‑frequency words — one species‑level, one gendered — you’re seeing reflexes of the old PIE split (even when the exact roots differ).

Quick Citations

Core reference works (solid starting points for each branch/root):

• LIV² — Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben (2nd ed., Rix, Kümmel et al., Reichert 2001). Key for PIE verbal roots and laryngeal-era reconstructions. (Wikipedia)
• IEW — Pokorny, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (Francke 1959). Classic (pre-laryngeal) IE overview; still useful for breadth and citations. (Wikipedia)
• de Vaan, Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages (Brill 2008). For homo, vir, virtus, etc. (Leiden IE Etymological Dictionary Series, vol. 7). (Brill)
• Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek (Brill 2010, 2 vols). For anthrōpos, anēr/andr-. (Google Books)
• Kroonen, Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic (Brill 2013; Leiden IEEDS, vol. 11). For mannaz, weraz, karlaz and reflexes. (Brill)
• Matasović, Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic (Brill 2009; Leiden IEEDS, vol. 9). For OIr fer, Welsh gŵr, and Proto-Celtic reconstructions. (Brill)
• Derksen, Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon (Brill 2008; Leiden IEEDS, vol. 4). For čelověk/człowiek, muž/mąż. (Brill)
• Watkins (ed.), The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots (3rd ed., 2011). Handy cross-branch root overviews and cultural notes. (semcoop.com)
• Mallory & Adams, The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World (OUP 2006). For big-picture background and methodological context. (Google Books)
• (For Greek specifically, a philological deep-dive) Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque (Klincksieck, 1968—1980; updated printings). (Biblio)

Tip: for quick digital lookups or previews, Brill title pages (Leiden series) and library/Google Books entries above are reliable anchors; Archive.org often hosts scan access for older works (IEW; some Beekes copies).

---

Conclusion

Indo-European languages almost always maintain two different lexical tracks: one for a human being at the species level and one for an adult male. Proto-Indo-European already seems to encode this split: a “human/thinker/earthling” root (often reconstructed as manu- or tied to *men- “to think” and to mythic Manu) versus a “male/warrior/husband” root (wiros → Latin vir, Celtic fer/gŵr, Germanic wer). Greek reproduces the same distinction with unrelated roots (anthrōpos vs. anēr/andr-), and Sanskrit keeps multiple registers for “person” alongside vīra “heroic man.”

Why care? Because etymology isn’t trivia here — it’s signal. Legal and philosophical traditions (Latin humanitas vs virtus), scientific coinages (anthropology, andrology), and even NLP pipelines (sense disambiguation, lemmatization, cross-branch cognate mapping) all benefit from recognizing the two-track inheritance. When you notice a language maintaining high-frequency terms for “human (as a kind)” and “male (as a sex),” you’re likely seeing a living shadow of PIE semantics — even where the exact roots differ, the division of labor remains.

Minimal PIE Etymology Notes

• *PIE manu‑ likely ties to men‑ “think” and to the mythic Manu (first man) in Indo‑Iranian; hence “the thinking one / human.”
• **PIE wiHrós / wiros → Latin vir, Celtic fer/gŵr, Germanic wer; semantic field: male, husband, warrior, hero.
• Latin homo comes from earth (humus) → “earthling,” hence a non‑gendered human.

Why this matters (beyond trivia)

• Philosophy & law: Latin’s homo/vir split shaped terms like humanitas vs virtus; Greek’s anthrōpos/andros shaped scientific vocab (anthropology, andrology).
• Bias in English: The collapse of the split into man powers ambiguities in historical texts and ideology (“rights of man” → human vs male debate).
• NLP & lexicography: Recognizing these dual roots helps in lemmatization, cognate mapping, and cross‑lingual semantic alignment.

Pronunciation Appendix

• PGmc final -z ≈ [z] → Norse -ʀ/-r via rhotacism.
• ON/PGmc au is a single diphthong (≈ [ɔu]/[aʊ]), not an umlaut.
• maðʀ arose from nn + ʀ → ðr coarticulation; later simplified in mainland Scandinavian, preserved in Icelandic (maður).