The word "Man"

[Blasphemous]

Let's put it this way: just because most people believed at a time that the Earth was flat, didn't mean it was actually flat

But luckily no society was ever responsible for the formation of the earth so your analogy is completely irrelevant. Language is first and foremost a tool and creation of a human society. The study of etymology has nothing to do with the development of a living language, oddly enough. The etymology is important for the study of the language, but this study is passive and must remain so. Its purpose is not to dictate the future of the language but to document the past.
It is the society that speaks the language that is in charge of unknowingly altering it over the generations, and be it out of ignorance it is nonetheless so. If etymology got in the way of the development of languages, we would not have any languages at all.
There are countless examples of words completely losing their etymological context of meaning. That's the whole point. Etymology is fascinating but it is not the basis for the development of a language.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Although that may be true etymologically, I have my own little theory (which is probably all too correct and not my own original idea) that cultures discard etymology and build internal logic within the languages they employ. If the internal logic employed by the international English-speaking culture dictates that human has "man" in it then it has "man" in it. I'm disinclined to make that connection myself but this is not a matter of personal opinion. The culture will determine this matter on its own and without telling anyone about it until it's too late.

Well, if people thought that "human" contained "man", they'd pluralize it as "humen". They don't.

 

[Perfection]

Let's put it this way: just because most people believed at a time that the Earth was flat, didn't mean it was actually flat

Language is dependant on the agreement of the parties involved. If many people believe that a word means something novel than dispite historical context it now has that meaning.

Edit: Yeah, and what Blasph said...

 

[Blasphemous]

Well, if people thought that "human" contained "man", they'd pluralize it as "humen". They don't.

Perhaps. Or perhaps people don't think that much about how they speak when it's something they absorbed in a time they can't remember.
I'll try and think of supporting examples.

EDIT: Well, one slightly anecdotal example of a similar case is this:
For a long time I thought the word "idiot" is derived from the psychological concept of the id - that it meant someone with little id or with no id or something. This was in elementary school. I'm almost certain I got this idea from a particular classmate of mine who has also always been rather intellectual and is also a native English-speaking Jerusalemite.
The connection between "idiot" and "id" has been formed in my mind and is now hard to break even when I have looked into the etymology. To me, "id" is a part of "idiot".
A similar mistake could easily spread and within a few years become a commonplace misconception. For all I know, most English-speakers mistakenly suppose as I did. Etymologically the supposition is wrong, but it is part of the meaning now wrapped within the usage of the word.

 

[Gladi]

Bright she-day
My is refrigarator which is female says she is not offended .

BTW why is it allright to call a girl "guy"?

 

[The Last Conformist]

@Blasphemous: Such folk etymologies are common enough. The plural form "humans", however is strong evidence it has not occured with "human". When a word undergoes such, it starts to behave like the assumed etymology was the actual one, eg. people commonly pluralize "octopus" as "octopi", because they (mistakenly) believe in contains the same ending as "alumnus", "radius".

 

[Blasphemous]

My point was more that it doesn't matter what the real etymology is than that people actually consider "man" to be the basis for "human". I think the possibility is there, both in the present and future but I would not assert that it is the current situation.
I really don't have a position on this particular matter, just arguing a side that I think may have something to it.

 

[The Last Conformist]

My point was more that it doesn't matter what the real etymology is than that people actually consider "man" to be the basis for "human".

I'm apparently not making myself clear - I'm arguing that English speakers today do not consider "man" to be the basis for "human". This is an assertion about synchronic usage, not about etymology.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

It has been so throughout the history of the language, and long may mankind remain. It really is window dressing, rather than anything in regards to real equality, if that is seen as something that is worthy.

 

[Blasphemous]

I'm apparently not making myself clear - I'm arguing that English speakers today do not consider "man" to be the basis for "human". This is an assertion about synchronic usage, not about etymology.

Yes, and I'm saying that perhaps many today do consider "man" to be the basis for "human" and that it hardly matters.