<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Were ancient &#8216;wives&#8217; women?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.oup.com/2011/10/wife/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.oup.com/2011/10/wife/</link>
	<description>Academic insights for the thinking world.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 15:31:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Abigail Quart</title>
		<link>http://blog.oup.com/2011/10/wife/#comment-233935</link>
		<dc:creator>Abigail Quart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:45:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.oup.com/?p=18858#comment-233935</guid>
		<description>I like it. Whatdya got for &quot;fizgig&quot;?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like it. Whatdya got for &#8220;fizgig&#8221;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fabio Bart</title>
		<link>http://blog.oup.com/2011/10/wife/#comment-233916</link>
		<dc:creator>Fabio Bart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 08:04:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.oup.com/?p=18858#comment-233916</guid>
		<description>In Scots there is also &quot;old wifey&quot;, a sort of term of endearment used when speaking about any old woman, whether married or not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In Scots there is also &#8220;old wifey&#8221;, a sort of term of endearment used when speaking about any old woman, whether married or not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Douglas Fear</title>
		<link>http://blog.oup.com/2011/10/wife/#comment-233830</link>
		<dc:creator>Douglas Fear</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:02:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.oup.com/?p=18858#comment-233830</guid>
		<description>I am not convinced by your comparison between a pronoun and the noun &#039;wife&#039; at all (I miss the parallels - do you have any?). Nice try, though. You did not mention, with regard to the Tocharian etymology (if we may call it that in &#039;shorthand&#039;), that Old English has wifmann (with /i:/) and - allegedly at any rate - waepman(n), the one being &#039;female servant&#039; vel sim. and the other being &#039;man&#039; proprie dictu. The point being that Toch. B kwipe and OE wif could well go back to a noun simply meaning &#039;genital (area)&#039; or similar. The etymology still has its problems, of course. 
I suppose (as usual) that we will all have to keep trying.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am not convinced by your comparison between a pronoun and the noun &#8216;wife&#8217; at all (I miss the parallels &#8211; do you have any?). Nice try, though. You did not mention, with regard to the Tocharian etymology (if we may call it that in &#8216;shorthand&#8217;), that Old English has wifmann (with /i:/) and &#8211; allegedly at any rate &#8211; waepman(n), the one being &#8216;female servant&#8217; vel sim. and the other being &#8216;man&#8217; proprie dictu. The point being that Toch. B kwipe and OE wif could well go back to a noun simply meaning &#8216;genital (area)&#8217; or similar. The etymology still has its problems, of course.<br />
I suppose (as usual) that we will all have to keep trying.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marc Leavitt</title>
		<link>http://blog.oup.com/2011/10/wife/#comment-233812</link>
		<dc:creator>Marc Leavitt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:02:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.oup.com/?p=18858#comment-233812</guid>
		<description>A fascinating subject. I would enjoy reading your take on wer(vir) for man; its origins and path through English. It only seems to survive today in werewolf.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A fascinating subject. I would enjoy reading your take on wer(vir) for man; its origins and path through English. It only seems to survive today in werewolf.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Cowan</title>
		<link>http://blog.oup.com/2011/10/wife/#comment-233810</link>
		<dc:creator>John Cowan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:43:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.oup.com/?p=18858#comment-233810</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Wife&lt;/i&gt; still means &#039;woman&#039; in Scots.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Wife</i> still means &#8216;woman&#8217; in Scots.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- WP Super Cache is installed but broken. The path to wp-cache-phase1.php in wp-content/advanced-cache.php must be fixed! -->