Why did English "man" and Latin "homo" take both the sense "gender-neutral human" and "male adult"?
According to etymonline.com, English "man", and incidentally Latin "homo" (which originally meant "gender-neutral human") superseded more specific words like "were" and "vir" in the sense of "adult male". Is there any theory as to why this happened?
This part is just secondary, feel free to ignore it: It seems (to me) beneficial to have both "man" and "were", both "homo" and "vir", because "woman" might not end up being considered "sexist" (?), and you might not have had to borrow "person" or "human" from French. Non-gender-based languages like Japanese, Chinese, Korean, etc. have managed to keep words for "human", "adult male" and "adult female" just fine, so why don't English and Latin (and their daughter and sister languages for that matter) do that? Is this phenomenon universal among gender-based languages? Not to make a feminist statement here, but apparently if a group of people consist of 100 females and 1 male, they will be referred to as "ils" in French, or "female" appears to be a product of a male-dominant mindset as it was falsely, folk-etymologically built on "male", so gender role probably plays a role here (which is one of the many reasons I have to agree with this guy).