So with the gender neutral language announcement made this week at Berkley, some folks on my Facebook blew up, of course, and a post mentioned the following:
I think the person who posted this got it from here, …but it is Quora, so…
Anyone have etymology on this one? I always figured it was a ‘hole’ that ‘men’ jumped into for work an Ninja Turtle parties…
There is some machinery that does have access hatches that are too small to be entered, which might be called hand-holes or (I suppose) arm-holes. Notwithstanding, the first attested entry in the OED, from 1793, describes a stone “large enough to admit of an opening, from floor to floor, or Man-Hole,” and the second from 1839 is a specific reference [edit: to boiler design]: “in the crown of the boiler is a large circular opening, called a man hole.” In all such examples it is clearly a hole large enough to allow a person to enter. Whether this is expressly gendered is, of course, closer to the traditional “does ‘man’ simply refer to all people” debate, but man holes are not “manual” ones. It’s also clear from the early uses that “manholes” was a term for a way of accessing sewers at the same time, or before, it was used as a term for the hatch through which one performs maintenance on boilers so I’m not sure why Quora would say sewer manholes would be so-termed “as an extension” of that use.
Also, the allegation from the Quora article that “man-” was “from the root word that means ‘hand’ as in ‘manual’” seems fanciful. I’m not aware of other usages like that, despite the unsupported claim that it is used in other phrases for something held in the hand. It would be odd in any case to combine a Latinate prefix like man- with an Old English word like hole.
This appears to be a fabrication in order to argue that a gender-neutral term isn’t necessary. However, even if true it would be irrelevant, since whatever the origin of the word the presently understood meaning is “an access hole large enough for a man to enter.” You can argue whether a gender-neutral term is or isn’t necessary, but the origin of the word doesn’t have much bearing on it.
aka the etymological fallacy.
Right, because it isn’t a prefix–it’s a root. It’s common to put Latinate prefixes on Germanic roots (“rewrite,” “redo,” etc.), but a combining form/root like “man” is rarely as productive that way.
I’m getting a garage built and the human-sized door they’re putting in (as opposed to the car-sized overhead doors) is being referred to as a “man-door.” No word on whether or not my wife will be able to use it.
I know etymologies can be strange but I’m surprised anyone even questions that “manhole” refers to a man-sized hole.
If the derivation were correct, one would expect to see smaller access holes referred to as manholes, and they never are. And I can’t recall ever seeing “armhole” used to refer to anything other than clothing.
It’s nonsense. Boiler manholes are for gaining access to the inside of the boiler for cleaning and other maintenance.
Putting a manual control inside the boiler where it would be completely inaccessible when the boiler was in operation would be quite mad.
I’ve found etymonline.com to be pretty reliable for etymological insights, and they attest the word to 1793, with the ‘man’ referring to a male human.