# Black widower: He mates then she dies.

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/black-widower-he-mates-then-she-dies/73018>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [July 19, 2001, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/black-widower-he-mates-then-she-dies/73018 "2001-07-19T04:23:11Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 7\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![IBBen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/85f322/32.png) [@IBBen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IBBen)\
**Post date:** [July 19, 2001, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/black-widower-he-mates-then-she-dies/73018/1 "2001-07-19T04:23:11Z")

</div>

Could somebody please help me understand this terminology?

Widow makes sense: He is dead, she lives on.  
Widower doesn’t make sense: Shouldn’t this describe the one who _creates_ the widow? Instead of defining the man who survives after his wife dies.

I understand the English language is rife with idioms and euphemisms, all I ask is for a rational explanation to this illogical nomenclature.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\
**Post date:** [July 19, 2001, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/black-widower-he-mates-then-she-dies/73018/2 "2001-07-19T04:55:25Z")

</div>

Er…

everyone else calls her a Black widow. Maybe you have a different version of the Discovery Channel where you live

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Balance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ccd318/32.png) [@Balance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balance)\
**Post date:** [July 19, 2001, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/black-widower-he-mates-then-she-dies/73018/3 "2001-07-19T05:37:29Z")

</div>

Not quite what he meant, **Tap**.

The confusion stems from assuming a modern meaning for the “-er” suffix, **Ben**. According to [this etymology](http://www.wordorigins.org/wordorw.htm#widow), it was a 14th Century coinage–a change from “widewe” to “widewer”. Apparently “widewe” was used for both male and female in the preceding four centuries. The “-r” suffix is likely a corruption of the “-estre” suffix, which (although denoting a feminine term in Old English) became [masculine in Middle English](http://www.bartleby.com/61/76/P0417600.html).

Does that help?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\
**Post date:** [July 19, 2001, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/black-widower-he-mates-then-she-dies/73018/4 "2001-07-19T05:49:46Z")

</div>

According to my copy of the American Heritage Dictionary, **widow** comes from the Middle English word _widewe_, which in turn is derived from the Old English _widuwe_. **Widower** is derived from the Middle English _widewer_, which is derived from _widewe_.

So ends the factual discussion. My WAG is that in Middle English, the _-er_ suffix (or just the _-r_) is used to “masculinify” a word (or, perhaps the opposite is true - without said suffix, the word is feminized; however, _widewe_ is listed as the common root, so I think the former is more likely).

[Upon preview, I see that **Balance** has said as much. I guess my WAG wasn’t so W after all, eh? But, dammit, I typed this all out, so I’m going to submit it anyway!]

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![IBBen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/85f322/32.png) [@IBBen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IBBen)\
**Post date:** [July 19, 2001, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/black-widower-he-mates-then-she-dies/73018/5 "2001-07-19T06:08:22Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \*  
> \*\*My WAG is that in Middle English, the _-er_ suffix (or just the _-r_) is used to “masculinify” a word (or, perhaps the opposite is true - without said suffix, the word is feminized; however, _widewe_ is listed as the common root, so I think the former is more likely).  
> \*\*

_“Holy run-on sentence Batman!”_

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\
**Post date:** [July 19, 2001, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/black-widower-he-mates-then-she-dies/73018/6 "2001-07-19T06:55:39Z")

</div>

I can make an unholy one, if you prefer 😃

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![IBBen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/85f322/32.png) [@IBBen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IBBen)\
**Post date:** [July 20, 2001, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/black-widower-he-mates-then-she-dies/73018/7 "2001-07-20T01:53:01Z")

</div>

**Darwin’s Finch:** Unholy run-on sentences are much more fun! I thank you for your response and didn’t mean to sound ungrateful 🙂
