Something I found kinda nice –

Ait. Br. III 34, from a suite of Roudran undertaking (hence why the cautionary note about what to do “should this verse appear to be too dangerous”) – referencing / explicating how to utilize RV I 43 6 – notes that there’s a pair of terms, ‘Naraḥ’ & ‘Nāryaḥ’, meaning ‘Men’ & ‘Women’, respectively.

(The actual formulation in the RV verse – ” नृभ्यो नारिभ्यो ” / “nṛbhyo nāribhyo “; this being those aforesaid terms in dative plural)

Now, why do I find this kinda nice ?

Because it helps to show that there’s more to Proto-Indo-European *h₂nér- than the commonly presumed “man” in the sense of “male human”. Now, what should be noted is that at the PIE level … a (linguistic) feminine gender is something that takes awhile to get going , with the assumed PIE suffix that’s produced the “-ī’ on the end of ‘Nar-‘, there, in Sanskrit, more archaically being used for another purpose than making feminine iterations of words;

And, more to the point … due to the (more archaic) lack of masculine & feminine genders, what you would anticipate is that where the sex of a person is actually seriously salient to a concept’s expression, you’d get actual different words for male and female counterparts – effectively, two (correlate, somewhat overlapping, yet meaningfully distinct) concepts instead of one concept (and therefore word) that gets effectively applied to members of both sexes, with the only differentiation being a feminizing suffix, *-ih₂- , attached on the end as a seeming late phase development.

 A good example for this former notion is provided for us via ‘Father’ and ‘Mother’ (PIE *Ph₂tḗr & *Méh₂-tr-, respectively) – which are clearly different words, conveying correlate yet meaningfully distinctive conceptry. After all, while both ‘Father’ and ‘Mother’ both pertain to a ‘Parent’, ‘Father’ does not mean ‘Mother’ (i.e. the terms are not interchangeable); and this is because there are significant sex-dependent qualitatively different components to the roles and relationships entailed via each (certain mythic occurrences potentially notwithstanding, for the early Indo-European the prospects for fathers gestating and giving birth to children, let alone breastfeeding, should seem vanishingly remote, for example).

This is in contrast to ‘Parent’, itself, wherein the concept entailed via the term is not sex-differentiated, and therefore the same word and its ambit quite straightforwardly encompasses persons of either sex who have children.

Although this would not (quite) present us with a ‘structural’ (so to speak) correlate to the scenario for PIE *h₂nér- – insofar as it is not one of those terms wherein modern English has seen fit to attach a feminizing suffix in order to demarcate application to the female of the species, in the manner of ‘God’ becoming ‘Goddess’ (i.e. we don’t encounter ‘Parent’ and ‘Parentess’, with the ‘-ess’-less formulation not only the ‘default’ but also prospectively the ‘masculine’ of the arrangement).

In fact, this is a type of thing which modern English all up appears to be de-emphasizing (although there are limits – the more archaic the element, the more likely to be at those ‘limits’: “prince” and “princess” are likely to remain both in-use, for example) – we have ‘actor’ and ‘actress’, but it is increasingly proper to use ‘actor’ for both genders; and likewise, ‘poet’ and ‘poetess’ are both in existence, as are ‘author’ and ‘authoress’ – but I can hardly imagine much of an eye being batted were one to simply utilize ‘poet’ or ‘author’ in such a both-genders applicable manner.

This is partially because, I suspect, modern English, is – for all our prevarications over pronouns, these days – not exactly a language all that much bothered about gender (sex-based, or otherwise) … at least in comparison to our cousins within the Romance family (from whence quite an array of our vocabulary is, of course, also drawn), such as the Italians, who have an “-essa” suffix which they make rather more active utilization for – “Professore” and “Professoressa”, or “Presidente” and “Presidentessa” (which runs into a bit of an issue insofar as potentially also encompassing the wife of a President, rather than simply a female President), you get the idea. 

So, where am I going with all of this? 

Basically, I don’t believe that PIE *h₂nér- should quite be parsed as ‘male’ or ‘male(ness)’, as one would likely conventionally encounter when the term is subject to perfunctory definition. That’s not to say that it *can’t* be utilized to refer to a man, nor to deny that it comes to underpin words which do get utilized for ‘man’ – although even here, it is instructive to consider just what it is which is, at the root, designated via our English term ‘Man’. Which, in Old English, could quite readily encompass both genders (much like ‘Mankind’ does even today), with a specifically ‘male-man’ designating term (‘wæpnedmann’ – ‘weaponed man’, and yes, the ‘weapon’ is just exactly what you think it is) to go along with the ‘wo-man’ / ‘female-man’ designating ‘wifmann’. The ‘essence’, if you like, to ‘Man’ being that which is designated via PIE *Men- – i.e. ‘mental activity’ / spirit’.  And therefore, the recognized bearing of such ‘spirit’ / ‘mental activity’ within being that which renders one human – something which, despite the predicted indignant commentary from the Cheap Seats decrying otherwise, is the characteristic of both male and female ‘men’ alike. 

So what should PIE *h₂nér- be interpreted as, then? 

I would infer something along the lines of ‘power’, ‘(life-)force’ (which is not my own ‘radical’ assessment – more of a ‘refining’ of that which is already out there, and re-situating how to think about another element as ‘contingent’, instead of ‘prime’). 

And, upon that score – here’s an excerpt from a (hopefully) forthcoming (A)Arti-cle of mine wherein we also bring to bear the thoughts of some actual linguists upon the subject, whilst also situating some developments for the term within their salient context(s). 

“De Vaan, meanwhile, a modern linguist, connects it to PIE *h₂nēr-, a term which whilst it *can* underpin words for ‘Man’ (and thus ‘Manliness’ etc.), we would here take as what Kölligan phrased quite correctly as its effective basis – “the more abstract meaning of ‘strength, vital energy'”. Hence the other (as Mallory & Adams phrase it) “derivatives: [Old Irish] nert ‘strength, power’, [Welsh] nerth ‘manliness, courage; army’, [Latin] neriōsus ‘firm’, [Old Prussian] nertien ‘anger’, [Lithuanian] nóras ‘will’, [Old Indic] nr̥tú- ‘hero'”; Schwartz presents *h₂ner- as “be strong” and notes viable linkage for “Vedic sūnara- ‘powerful, potent'”, and postulates usage around “have power over” and “take hold of”; Matasović has a Proto-Celtic *Nerto-, meaning “Strength, Force”. Or, in other words – ‘Shakti’.

And – as one would intuit – not only expressable as an array of what we might in both modern and ancient Latinate senses deem “Martial Virtues” … but also able to be imbued. Most obviously into the God, and into the human Hero (indeed, there’s quite a swathe of *h₂nēr- derived terms which basically mean ‘Hero’ : one assumes Hittite ‘innara-‘, which Kölligan parses as ‘having *h₂ner- inside’, should prove pertinent ; c.f., for instance, AV-S VI 38, in which the Mother of Indra is called upon to similarly empower the supplicant with ‘energy’ [“várcasā”], and then observe the various Classical legendaria in which a hero or more properly a Demigod is likewise maternally empowered – Triptolemos or Demophon, and Heracles (per Diodorus Siculus [IV 9 6 & 39 2] via way of a fine Etruscan mirror) Himself) … but not only.

As made clear via Sāyaṇa’s AV-S IV 31 4 commentary, the Vedic invocation for The Manyu (correlate in various fashions, not least linguistically, for Minerva, if you recall) is intended to ‘fire up’ an entire population, a nation, for war – we can readily envisage the empowerment of an army upon such a basis. However, that which I had actually intended to draw attention to was the concept for ’empowerment’ for the armaments and other such equipment for such a force – as we would undertake in the Astra / Shastra Puja immediately following the NavaRatri observance; and as the Romans should appear to have done for at the very least their military trumpets during the Tubilustrium which concludes the Quinquatria, alongside propitiation for the ‘Dea Fortis’ / “Forti […] Deae” [ Fasti III 850 ] and the armed ritual dances of the Salii priests – certainly, as Scullard phrases it, “the ceremony was designed to help make the army fit for war”, and Rosivach also notes mention by Lydus [IV 34] for an Armilustrium ‘weapons-purification’ operation occurrent as part of the Quinquatria observance.

This Tubilustrium is declared by John Lydus [IV 60] to be, as Rosivach puts it, “in honor of Mars and Neriene ( = Nerio).””

So, if *h₂nér- bears such a ‘power’ / ‘(life-)force’ essence, rather than ‘male’ … then this also helps to explain why one finds theonymics for divinities of *both* sexes derived from the relevant term (with the male iteration potentially utilizing the ‘default’ construction for the term, the female – as is customary – getting the suffixed differentiation; without this inherently changing the ‘essence’ to the term’s application herein).

NOT because, as some have sought to assert (whether for reasons academic or perhaps, these days, more ‘political’), a particular Divinity had somehow ‘changed sex’ over the course of several hundred years, from the (female) ‘Nerthus’ mentioned in Tacitus’ ‘Germania’ through to the (male) ‘Njörðr’ referenced by Sturluson (to take a particular example which I’ve seen being directly parsed in this manner – ‘Ocean Keltoi’ previously invoked this idea to claim, and I quote: “Njordr and Skadi are likely trans deities, and it would be completely reasonable to venerate them as such.”) …

… but rather because a (shared?) concept is being referenced via these theonymics (at least, in their essential foundational underpinnings as to meaning – whether this has been remembered to a salient degree or otherwise), and it is presumably perfectly appropriate for both male and female divinities to be linked to such (for a somewhat illustrative example – both ‘Deva’ and ‘Devī’ in Sanskrit (i.e. ‘God’ & ‘Goddess’) have at the root the ‘Bright/Shining/Celestial’ saliency).

Indeed, one thinks of that theonymic for the aforesaid Wife of Mars  – ‘Nerio’ – which is simultaneously clearly PIE *h₂nēr- derived, and also expressly correlated (as the Romans themselves understood it – ref. Aulus Gellius’ Noctes Atticae XIII 23) with qualities one would quite logically link to Mars Himself.

The actual wording, from Gellius’ recounting for the archaic Sabine term involved, being that ‘Nerio’ or ‘Nerienes’ “significatur virtus et fortitudo” – “signifies valour and courage”, as Rolfe’s translation has it; Gellius also phrases the relationship (Their Relationship) rather beautifully : “Nerio igitur Martis vis et potentia et maiestas quaedam esse Martis demonstratur. ” That is: “Therefore Nerio designates the strength and power of Mars and a certain majesty of the War-god.”, per Rolfe – personally, I would have rendered “vis” more along the lines of “force” … were we restricting my ability to instead utilize much more immediately apt Sanskrit, particularly.

In any case, as you can see, the underpinning sense to ‘Nerio’ effectively speaks to that which I’d phrased some several paragraphs above for the vital essence of *h₂nēr- as “something along the lines of ‘power’, ‘(life-)force’.”

And as for the drawing from this in order  to fuel a designation for a (hu)man – it’s likewise an essential characteristic and essential point of distinguishment for such.

As you can see elocuted within the prominent anthropogonic account of the Norse – prior to being in receipt of ‘Empowerment’ from the Gods (being ‘animated’ we might say), Askr & Embla are described at Völuspá XVII as being (of) “lítt megandi”, “little / lacking power / ability” (‘megandi’ shares its root , PIE *m(o)gʰ- ,  with both English ‘May’, as in “I may -“, and ‘Might’, as in “Mighty”, as well as Sanskrit ‘Magha’ (मघ), … oh and ‘Magic’, as it happens, too), and also lacking “læti”, ‘voice / noise, human conduct / manners’ (the Proto-Germanic which underpins that, *lētanan , is also where we get English ‘(To) Let’ from, and can convey much the same meaning).

The Gylfaginning iteration is much more blunt, stating them to have been “trees” (er … given the saliency (not to mention sapiency!) of rather ‘spirited’ trees, so to speak, in  both Norse and broader IE perception – we’ll suggest a better idiomatic would be suggesting Askr & Embla at this stage to be ‘Part Of The Furniture’, indistinguishable from ‘the background’, ‘the terrain’, etc. – ‘a vegetable’, if you want to stick to the plant dynamic).

In the absence of *h₂nēr- – that’s effectively what we are. All-but-inanimate objects (and remember the essential two genders of archaic Proto-Indo-European : ‘Animate’ and ‘Inanimate’ … the ‘quick’ and the ‘dead’, indeed) that cannot be recognized as (meaningfully) ‘human’, even if we might so happen to look like such (as, indeed, a corpse would – or a wooden-carved effigy, for that matter).

And so that’s why a term for ‘power’ or ‘force’ gets utilized (also) to designate ‘humans’ – because it’s the presence of, and more overtly the recognition as to the presence of this *h₂nēr- within us which enables us to be properly ‘classed’ as ‘human’, as ‘agents’ (i.e. having agency), within the understanding(s) of our peers (er … our … rather archaic ancestors and *their* peers; assuming you’re not the sort of person for whom Proto-Indo-European words and conceptry are a frequent and even foundational fixture for your social sphere).

And that’s something which applies for both men and women.

And also Gods, as it happens – as the Saundarya Lahari of Adi Shankara phrases it via way of opening :

Śivaḥ śaktyā yukto yadi bhavati śaktaḥ prabhavituṁ
na cedevaṁ devo na khalu kuśalaḥ spanditumapi |

“Shiva with Shakti joined (Yukta), if (Yadi) comes to be (Bhavati) empowered / endowed with (Sakta) is able to influence / manifest / effect (Prabhavitum)

If Without (Na Cet), the God (Devo) is indeed (Khalu) not capable / competent (Kusala) even (Api) to ‘pulsate’ / ‘move’ / ‘engage in mental activity’ (Spanditum) .”

Or, in rather more conventional English:

“If Shiva is joined with His Shakti, then He becomes empowered to Manifest and Impel the Universe

But without Her, Even the Mighty God is indeed unable to even Move nor Mentally Conceive”

Shiva, in other words, would be ‘Shava’ (‘Corpse’) . As would, ultimately, the Worlds Entire.

A fortunate thing, then, that the Three Worlds are ‘energized’ via that Goddess – Mahātripurasundarī  – Whose very theonymic , viz. ‘Sundarī’, conveys both Her Radiant Beauty (the colloquial meaning), and ‘Great Power’ or Potency (that which should connote itself as both ‘contextual’ and likely underpinning etymological interpretation – as made clearer when one considers the components, viz. Sanskrit ‘Su-‘ and ‘-Nara’ – from PIE *Hsu- and our by-now familiar *H₂nēr-).

Jai Mata Di.