14

Everybody understands the substantive Mann as designating a male human individual.

Some people might also be aware of the kinship between Mann and the verb to command, which crops up for instance in the Old Swedish noun mander.

I have had however a few suspicion that the Mann substantive also could be interpreted collectively as a tribe.

  • The Alemanni confederation of tribes who became notorious in Roman Gaul during the Late Roman empire and its collapse, which yielded so many ethnonyms for the German people (e.g. "Les Allemands", "Los Alemanes" to name but a few). In this occurrence it seems that "Alle Männer" must be be understood as "all tribes" rather than "all men".
  • The etymology of the ethnonym the Normans. In old English, you have "Norðmann", a precise translation of which would be the "people from the North" as in "Nordleuten" rather than "men from the North" "Nordmänner"1.
  • The kinship mentioned above between Mann (a concept related to a single individual) and to command2 (a concept related to a troop, a clan or a party).

Questions

  1. So I'm curious to know whether there are some more indications of an old phased out meaning of Mann as a tribe rather than a single individual.
  2. Considering that in many of today's nomadic people there are clear indications that a tribe is little more than an extended family, would that be a possible explanation.
    [1] Late edit. I quote the "Norðmann" word on the premises that Old English is part of the West Germanic subfamily of Germanic languages. Although both Normannen in German and Norman in English are later loanwords from Old French (11c.), the word Norðmann is endemic to Old English and its use attested in various Wessex manuscripts (10c. also Normann).

[2] Although the etymology of to command through the Latin verb mando is the hand (manus), it ultimately goes back to the PIE root man-.

Eugene Seidel
  • 3,658
  • 1
  • 20
  • 33
Alain Pannetier
  • 802
  • 7
  • 14
  • Can it be used in a related way in modern English? For example: The phrase "the rise of man" means "the rise of humanity seen as a whole" or "the rise of the human collective" which resembles "the human tribe" in some sense. – Stovner Jun 07 '11 at 14:01
  • 2
    @Stovner that doesn't work in German - you'd have to use "Der Mensch" or "Die Menschheit" – Pekka Jun 07 '11 at 14:42
  • For what it's worth, the german Wikipedia entry seems to be a bit more specific than the english one. Translating: "Alemanni ... is probably of Germanic origin and means 'All men' (in the sense of "humans") or 'All men (= males fit for battle)'". There seems to be no indication of the use of "Mann" in a clan context, at least as far as Wikipedia goes – Pekka Jun 07 '11 at 14:44
  • @Stovner. Absolutely. In the sense of "Menschheit" you have will find for instance the landmark documentary "The Ascent of Man". The sense of "Mann" I'm looking for is closer to "Mannschaft" - "Menscheit" is a relatively new word in German. The noun Mann-shaft is actually possibly another indication ("Soldaten einer militärischen Einheit"). – Alain Pannetier Jun 07 '11 at 14:46
  • 2
    I'm not so sure what the question is. "Löws Mannen bezwangen Aserbaidschan." is fine and nowadays German. "Mannschaft" in sports and military seem to be related to the question - however, in former times man and fighter might have been an identity. But the singular form "Mann" is not soldier/fighter. "Hauptmann" is related to warfare, but "Obmann", "Steuermann", "Eismann" etc. aren't. – user unknown Jun 07 '11 at 19:15
  • @user: "Löws Mannen" deliberately plays with "Mannen" being archaic. – Hendrik Vogt Jun 08 '11 at 08:45
  • 3
    Do you mind me asking where you're going with this? It sounds a bit like you're working towards some gender/culture kind of thing. Like others have already said, this double meaning/interpretation may work in English, but certainly does not work in modern German - probably never has. It's at any rate highly problematic to work one's way backwards through the evolution of language with a preconceived idea in mind, looking for proof. No offence! :) – Mac Mar 07 '13 at 18:51
  • In Romanen und Germanen haben sich auch Mannen versteckt. – user unknown Mar 08 '13 at 01:54
  • 4
    I'm wondering if you are being misled by a specific English meaning of the word "man". The transference of the designator "Alamannen" from one tribe to all Germans does not change the meaning of a part of that compound, especially since this was a usage of foreigners misusing a word from a language they did not speak. The fact that Germans refer to one slice of fried potato with the plural "ein Pommes", does not change the meaning for the French plural. That is faulty reasoning. –  Mar 08 '13 at 09:46
  • @userunknown und in den Kleptomanen erst... – tofro Jul 10 '17 at 19:24
  • Presumably the clear separation of "Man" (one/anyone/someone) and "Mann" (man/husband) didn't always exist? And some of the words cited belong more with "Man" than with "Mann"? – Michael Kay Dec 12 '17 at 23:15
  • The link to PIE root -man only leads to a non-existent article. Could you please elaborate on the etymological connection between Latin "manus" and German "Mann"? – Frank from Frankfurt Jan 08 '19 at 15:09
  • @userunknown "In Romanen und Germanen haben sich auch Mannen versteckt." In Germanen schon, denn das sind die mit die Speere. Ger-männer also. In Romanen eher nicht, denn das sind nur die (?) aus Roma. –  May 14 '21 at 19:03
  • Bei BellesLettres https://www.belleslettres.eu/content/wortkunde/frau-dame.php wird am Rande (ab Min. 30, bzw. für Eilige ab 39) im Zusammenhang mit den Paaren Herr/Dame Mann/Frau erwähnt, dass "Mann" im germanischen ursprünglich für Menschen genutzt wurde, wie man an "man", "jemand", usw. und am engl. "mankind" noch erahnen kann. – user unknown May 14 '21 at 23:46

3 Answers3

9

Neither in everyday language nor in any other use of German I'm familiar with does Mann have even the slightest connotation of tribe. I think you're looking for something that doesn't exist (or has been a 100% lost from the language feeling).

The old plural 'Mannen' has long survived (but is today almost obsolete) in the meaning of "retinue", but doesn't have a connotation of tribe.

markus
  • 1,975
  • 12
  • 10
  • 2
    +1 - Sorry if this sounds ironic, but whilst you're saying that "I'm looking for something that does not exist", you actually seem to be giving the solution on the next line. Putting aside, as you suggest, the tribal sense. The Mannen (a weird weak plural for a strong noun btw) sense of group of men in arms is close to what I'm looking for especially in the compound name "Ala-mannen". A possible conclusion so far is that Mann itself is not a collective noun for a tribe but "Mannen" has a military meaning compatible with "Alemannen" and possibly "Markomannen" or "Normannen". – Alain Pannetier Jun 07 '11 at 15:50
  • 1
    That would mean reducing tribal life to warfare. A tribe is a society, warfare is only a small part of tribal life. – markus Jun 07 '11 at 17:34
  • 3
    @AlainPannetier Mann changed to weak declination in MHG (pl. manne), the pl. Männer appeared later in the 15th c. The meaning of Mann as warrior is just part of many meanings of Mann referring to men's functions in society and is unrelated to them sometimes carrying out these duties as a group. Also, Mannen is NOT a term for men at arms, only the context creates this meaning. I edited the answer to reflect this fact. –  Mar 08 '13 at 09:28
3

Although the modern word Mann has no meaning of tribe anymore, the mentioned roots are visible with Normannen, which would be the word-to-word-translation of Normans.

As far as the wikipedia article tells Normannen is a French loanword.

Samuel Herzog
  • 1,978
  • 11
  • 23
  • Thanks. I'm still interested in this subject. As for Normannen being a loanword from French, please see the note [1] which I've just added to the initial question. – Alain Pannetier Jun 08 '11 at 10:45
0

There is no point in reverse engineering in language.
It simply doesn't work.
Too many variables.
Allemagne is (TMK) derived from the first two words of an old German attack command and basically just means "all men" in the sense of "everyone" addressing the entire assault party. There is record of that dating back over 800 years, although I have no access to it right now. (source died)

What I don't get in the question is the link between Mannen or Männer or men/man and tribe, which is an entirely different thing. Not every collection of men is a tribe. The Normans or Normannen or Noormannen or Normands were just men from the north raiding the northern European coasts, but they were never one tribe as such. It wasn't a name they gave themselves.

As far as French loanwords are concerned, they were called a whole variety of words indicating they were "men from the north" all over the place and they really did get all over. As far south as Ethiopia, as far east as the Russian tundras and as far west as the great lakes of north America. Considering that, it is somehow typically French to claim they are the ones that gave them that name.