Talk:Englishman

can englishman be used with women also?

No - that's an "Englishwoman". Moving feminine forms to there, if they aren't already there. Paul G 09:10, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've just changed the entry so that it only covers men and not women. Equinox ◑ 03:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

E.g. dictionary.reference.com/browse/englishman?s=t : "a native or a naturalized citizen of England". Thus it can, like man can also refer to humans in general. -93.196.225.85 15:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Scroll down the page and you'll find a professional dictionary's entry (Collins) that says male. Anyway, we can't rely on some random Web site. See WT:CFI for our inclusion rules. Equinox ◑ 15:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It's no random website, it's a dictionary resp. a collection of dictionaries. It states: "Dictionary.com Unabridged - Based on the Random House Dictionary", cf. [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_House_Webster%27s_Unabridged_Dictionary]

PS: Another dictionary: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/englishman . There it's "Englishman = an English man" an "man = an individual human; especially: an adult male human [...]". So 2 dictionaries which list Englishman with the meaning "an English human".

PPS: some quotes & questions/comments:

• "From the 14th of October, or perhaps Christmas Day, 1066, when Englishmen lost their independence to the Norman aristocracy, a yoke which they are just beginning to think about shaking off." (The Atlantic monthly, vol. 74, 1894) -- Were Englishwoman independent back then (or were they property of their husbands or fathers)? If they were, then didn't they lost their independence too? And even if they were property of their husbands or fathers, weren't they conquered by the Norman too?
• "Because of religious and national tensions, which boiled over into overt warfare after 1585, Englishmen in the Americas tended to think about human bondage as the likely plight of the unfortunates of any nation." (Slaves and Englishmen: Human Bondage in the Early Modern Atlantic World) & "Englishmen found blackness in human beings a peculiar and important point of difference. The Negro's color set him radically apart from Englishmen." (Racial Mythologies: African American Female Images and Representation from [...]) -- Did Englishwoman think any different?
• "Let all Englishmen hear this, and ask themselves if they have now or ever had any security from the aggressions and tyranny of pretended legislators?" (The Wrongs of Englishmen, and the Rights of Freemen) -- Shouldn't Englishwomen hear it too?
• "A Grammar of the Danish Language for the Use of Englishmen" (book by Rasmus Rask) -- Didn't Englishwoman belong to the target audience too?
• "I searched for "female Englishman" on Google Books - no relevant results." -- no wonder. Instead of "female Englishman" the word "Englishwoman" is shorter and may sound better. Nevertheless especially the plural Englishmen could and does refer to both kinds of Englishman, male and female.
• "English Civil War (1642-46): In the struggle between the Puritans of Parliament and the High-Church supporters of the King, 190,000 Englishmen died, including, at the end, the king himself." (Atrocitology: Humanity's 100 Deadliest Achievements) -- en.wp states: "[...] an estimate of 190,000 dead [...]". So, how many women died? More men die at war, but did really (almost) no woman die during the civil war? Of course the book could be wrong anyway, but the 190,000 Englishmen in the book should be the 190,000 dead at en.wp and the term Englischmen could/should include dead females, if there were any.
• "In 1665 the second horseman, Pestilence, arrived. In May, 43 Englishmen died of plague, in June nearly 600, and in September more than 30,000." (To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right) -- Back then there was the Great Plague (1665–66) and the numbers could/should refer to Englishman of both genders. [blackdeathreglit.weebly.com/timeline.html] & [www.twoop.com/bubonic-plague-timeline] state that 43 people died in May 1665 because of plague. So, did no women die? BTW: According to the two timelines "nearly 600" could be an error and could mean "more than 6000".

-93.196.225.85 16:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC), E: 17:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC) & 18:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Older sources sometimes talk about men and neglect the women. It doesn't mean women are a subset of men lexically!! Equinox ◑ 18:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

„(male native of England): Englishwoman”??? Really? 'A female native or inhabitant of England; a woman who is English by birth, descent or naturalisation'