I put in a conjugation table, but couldn't be sure what the accentation was on some forms, so I left them without, and simply assumed a standard second declension. And I couldn't find a plural vocative form (admittedly, I don't know if such a thing actually exists). Cerealkiller13 22:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- ἄνθρωπος is indeed a standard second declension noun. For the paradigm, the plural vocative always is identical to the plural nominative. Medellia 08:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Why do we bother to mention Beekes theory on ἄνθρωπος when we have several Greek words having the -ὤψ component e.g. σκυδρός + ὤψ = σκυθρωπός, αρρέν + ὤψ = αρρενωπός and so on? Fkitselis 20:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe is it interesting to notice that Sanskrit has andhra = man of a low caste, which seems to derive from the same PIE root cited in the article, that is *n̥dʰreh₃kʷó- (“that which is below”).
अन्ध्र andhra m. man of a low caste
I have seen a possibly meaningfull alternative - or additional - etimolgy for 'anthropos' in the article Word Meaning in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy .
For comparative linguistics is not my speciality, I am just citing it here (with reference to source) to consider.
For example, the Greek word ‘anthrôpos’ can be broken down into anathrôn ha opôpe, which translates as “one who reflects on what he has seen”: the word used to denote humans reflects their being the only animal species which possesses the combination of vision and intelligence. More in Malkiel (1993), Fumaroli (1999), and Del Bello (2007).
It is possible that was not where the word originates from, but it seem posible people who used it - e.g. Plato - thought it originated from there and assigned such meaning to it. Marjan T. --18.104.22.168 15:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)