In a world with multiracial creatures, what word can be used instead of mankind? [closed]
$begingroup$
So, I've been trying to find a word which means all the people in the world. One would think of humanity, humankind, mankind, or just people, but I want something that can express the meaning properly while also including all races instead of just "human".
If it helps, what I meant by "something that can express the meaning properly", I don't want elves, orcs, angels, and others to call themselves as "human" when they say "humanity". So, something a bit more universal for them, perhaps?
society fantasy-races communication social-norms races
$endgroup$
closed as primarily opinion-based by Renan, Gryphon, Agrajag, JBH, Cyn Feb 21 at 19:12
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
So, I've been trying to find a word which means all the people in the world. One would think of humanity, humankind, mankind, or just people, but I want something that can express the meaning properly while also including all races instead of just "human".
If it helps, what I meant by "something that can express the meaning properly", I don't want elves, orcs, angels, and others to call themselves as "human" when they say "humanity". So, something a bit more universal for them, perhaps?
society fantasy-races communication social-norms races
$endgroup$
closed as primarily opinion-based by Renan, Gryphon, Agrajag, JBH, Cyn Feb 21 at 19:12
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
11
$begingroup$
What's wrong with the word "people" ?
$endgroup$
– Tim B♦
Feb 21 at 10:48
3
$begingroup$
Related: worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/129285
$endgroup$
– Kyyshak
Feb 21 at 10:49
1
$begingroup$
Thesaurus:humankind. You may also try oecumene or ecumene; while Wiktionary seems to believe that the primary meaning is now "unified Christianity", my copy of the OED doesn't even list this (American?) meaning and still gives "inhabited world" as the only meaning.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Feb 21 at 11:27
1
$begingroup$
Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself. Basically, it's made up of two separate words — "mank" and "ind." What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind (Jack Handey)
$endgroup$
– Michael Richardson
Feb 21 at 15:35
3
$begingroup$
Writers.SE is a good place for questions like this. The key is that the "best" word to use depends on what you want to convey to the reader, and what sort of upbringing the reader has. The answer changes based on the demographic of the audience.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
Feb 21 at 18:07
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
So, I've been trying to find a word which means all the people in the world. One would think of humanity, humankind, mankind, or just people, but I want something that can express the meaning properly while also including all races instead of just "human".
If it helps, what I meant by "something that can express the meaning properly", I don't want elves, orcs, angels, and others to call themselves as "human" when they say "humanity". So, something a bit more universal for them, perhaps?
society fantasy-races communication social-norms races
$endgroup$
So, I've been trying to find a word which means all the people in the world. One would think of humanity, humankind, mankind, or just people, but I want something that can express the meaning properly while also including all races instead of just "human".
If it helps, what I meant by "something that can express the meaning properly", I don't want elves, orcs, angels, and others to call themselves as "human" when they say "humanity". So, something a bit more universal for them, perhaps?
society fantasy-races communication social-norms races
society fantasy-races communication social-norms races
asked Feb 21 at 10:46
WarmHearthWarmHearth
917
917
closed as primarily opinion-based by Renan, Gryphon, Agrajag, JBH, Cyn Feb 21 at 19:12
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as primarily opinion-based by Renan, Gryphon, Agrajag, JBH, Cyn Feb 21 at 19:12
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
11
$begingroup$
What's wrong with the word "people" ?
$endgroup$
– Tim B♦
Feb 21 at 10:48
3
$begingroup$
Related: worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/129285
$endgroup$
– Kyyshak
Feb 21 at 10:49
1
$begingroup$
Thesaurus:humankind. You may also try oecumene or ecumene; while Wiktionary seems to believe that the primary meaning is now "unified Christianity", my copy of the OED doesn't even list this (American?) meaning and still gives "inhabited world" as the only meaning.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Feb 21 at 11:27
1
$begingroup$
Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself. Basically, it's made up of two separate words — "mank" and "ind." What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind (Jack Handey)
$endgroup$
– Michael Richardson
Feb 21 at 15:35
3
$begingroup$
Writers.SE is a good place for questions like this. The key is that the "best" word to use depends on what you want to convey to the reader, and what sort of upbringing the reader has. The answer changes based on the demographic of the audience.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
Feb 21 at 18:07
|
show 3 more comments
11
$begingroup$
What's wrong with the word "people" ?
$endgroup$
– Tim B♦
Feb 21 at 10:48
3
$begingroup$
Related: worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/129285
$endgroup$
– Kyyshak
Feb 21 at 10:49
1
$begingroup$
Thesaurus:humankind. You may also try oecumene or ecumene; while Wiktionary seems to believe that the primary meaning is now "unified Christianity", my copy of the OED doesn't even list this (American?) meaning and still gives "inhabited world" as the only meaning.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Feb 21 at 11:27
1
$begingroup$
Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself. Basically, it's made up of two separate words — "mank" and "ind." What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind (Jack Handey)
$endgroup$
– Michael Richardson
Feb 21 at 15:35
3
$begingroup$
Writers.SE is a good place for questions like this. The key is that the "best" word to use depends on what you want to convey to the reader, and what sort of upbringing the reader has. The answer changes based on the demographic of the audience.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
Feb 21 at 18:07
11
11
$begingroup$
What's wrong with the word "people" ?
$endgroup$
– Tim B♦
Feb 21 at 10:48
$begingroup$
What's wrong with the word "people" ?
$endgroup$
– Tim B♦
Feb 21 at 10:48
3
3
$begingroup$
Related: worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/129285
$endgroup$
– Kyyshak
Feb 21 at 10:49
$begingroup$
Related: worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/129285
$endgroup$
– Kyyshak
Feb 21 at 10:49
1
1
$begingroup$
Thesaurus:humankind. You may also try oecumene or ecumene; while Wiktionary seems to believe that the primary meaning is now "unified Christianity", my copy of the OED doesn't even list this (American?) meaning and still gives "inhabited world" as the only meaning.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Feb 21 at 11:27
$begingroup$
Thesaurus:humankind. You may also try oecumene or ecumene; while Wiktionary seems to believe that the primary meaning is now "unified Christianity", my copy of the OED doesn't even list this (American?) meaning and still gives "inhabited world" as the only meaning.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Feb 21 at 11:27
1
1
$begingroup$
Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself. Basically, it's made up of two separate words — "mank" and "ind." What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind (Jack Handey)
$endgroup$
– Michael Richardson
Feb 21 at 15:35
$begingroup$
Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself. Basically, it's made up of two separate words — "mank" and "ind." What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind (Jack Handey)
$endgroup$
– Michael Richardson
Feb 21 at 15:35
3
3
$begingroup$
Writers.SE is a good place for questions like this. The key is that the "best" word to use depends on what you want to convey to the reader, and what sort of upbringing the reader has. The answer changes based on the demographic of the audience.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
Feb 21 at 18:07
$begingroup$
Writers.SE is a good place for questions like this. The key is that the "best" word to use depends on what you want to convey to the reader, and what sort of upbringing the reader has. The answer changes based on the demographic of the audience.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
Feb 21 at 18:07
|
show 3 more comments
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
"Sophonts", plural of "Sophont", has commonly been used in Science-Fiction since the 1960s.
It is a term for an intelligent/sapient being (the Greek root words are "sophós", meaning "wise", "clever" or "intelligent", and "ṓn" - the present participle of "eimí" - which means "being", "existence", or "that which is")
Alternatively, along the same lines, would just be "Sentients"
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
And is further differentiated from "sentient" and "sapient" by admittedly vague qualifiers, but that's why the term "sophont" came about anyway. Sapience is raw intelligence, sentience is emotion: pleasure, pain, etc. (I get those two backwards all the time). Sophonce, then, is meta-cognition. This site had a good article on it.
$endgroup$
– Draco18s
Feb 21 at 18:00
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Well people does a pretty good job.
Some definitions for people mean exclusively humans
human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings.
But, some definitions relate more to multiple individuals
the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like
That said I'd probably go for folk.
people of a specified class or group
In some fantasy settings, you often see references to mer-folk or fey-folk, so folk on its own can encompass all races, while not relating to other creatures likes bears for example.
All quotes from www.dictionary.com
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Upvoted for folk
$endgroup$
– barbecue
Feb 21 at 18:18
add a comment |
$begingroup$
They all belong to their home planet, so why not calling them after what they have in common, eg. earthlings .
They could as well be "martians", "Alpha Centaurians" or whatever you want to call them.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The computer game Pillars of Eternity used "kith" to describe all sentient members of society, regardless of species. It worked well in a fantasy context.
The meaning is closer to "friends", but it's archaic enough that people don't use it outside of the the set phrase "kith and kin".
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Peoples has historically been used when describing people of the world within different regions. For example, in Will Durant's The Story of Civilization:
The first principle of his policy was that the various peoples of his empire should be left free in their religious worship and beliefs, for he fully understood the first principle of statesmanship - that religion is stronger than the state.
This usage is specifically used for people of different ethnicities; I personally don't think there's a prejorative associated with its usage, so I think it's quite apt in this context.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How about sapiens.
Humans are homo sapiens already.
HQ: All vehicles keep on the lookout for a sapien carrying a crossbow. Green hooded jacket, track suit bottoms, and trainers. Warning, may be chaotic evil.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Allkind?
Or "Everykind" or "Everykin". In a world where there are beings you would not describe as humans, but which are able to talk to us, and who live alongside us, it's likely that language itself would be different, meaning you'll have to coin some terms.
K Mo may be right about "folk" as a stand-in for human in a phrase like "We're all human." (I cynically suspect that the expressions between such races would tend to be more along the lines of "None of the rest of you are angels," but that's outside the scope of the question.)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Disclaimer: this answer is useful only if your purpose is to write a novel set in a fictitious world.
You could create an ad-hoc word for it.
Since in world-building usually you create a world with its own mythology and history, you could use names or places from a suitable fictitious myth/legend/hystoric event to create a word to describe all sentient beings.
Just to give you an example.
You could set up a myth about the gods who created the first sentient being, whose name was - let's' say - "Olgon".
After a kind of crysis (something like Olgon disobeyed an order by the gods, or was too powerful/wise and the gods feared him...), Olgon was punished and his body divided into different creatures, from which descended all the different races of the world (elves, orcs, humans...).
So, the sentient beings in your world are defined "Orgonian" (or "Orgonites"), while the group of every sentient being is defined "the Orgonity".
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In RPG often used term is for that case is
Humanoids
=> are any creature shaped generally like a human (two arms, two legs, one head, or a humanlike torso, arms, and head), of Small or Medium size. Most humanoids can speak, and usually have well-developed societies.
link explaining + some races considered humanoid.
There are additional races depending on game and setting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanoid_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I've always liked "being(s)" in that place. I've read it that way in books before but of course I cannot recall those titles now. It works well in standards sayings; "We're only beings" "we're all beings" "anybeing" "everybeing" and funny enough, a few answers already used it to describe their chosen word without giving it any thought:
"Sophonts" ... is a term for an intelligent/sapient being
Allkind? Or "Everykind" or "Everykin". In a world where there are beings you would not describe as humans...
It can also be defined as:
A real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one.
Which could come in handy if any of your beings happen to be amorphous blobs of light.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
"Sophonts", plural of "Sophont", has commonly been used in Science-Fiction since the 1960s.
It is a term for an intelligent/sapient being (the Greek root words are "sophós", meaning "wise", "clever" or "intelligent", and "ṓn" - the present participle of "eimí" - which means "being", "existence", or "that which is")
Alternatively, along the same lines, would just be "Sentients"
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
And is further differentiated from "sentient" and "sapient" by admittedly vague qualifiers, but that's why the term "sophont" came about anyway. Sapience is raw intelligence, sentience is emotion: pleasure, pain, etc. (I get those two backwards all the time). Sophonce, then, is meta-cognition. This site had a good article on it.
$endgroup$
– Draco18s
Feb 21 at 18:00
add a comment |
$begingroup$
"Sophonts", plural of "Sophont", has commonly been used in Science-Fiction since the 1960s.
It is a term for an intelligent/sapient being (the Greek root words are "sophós", meaning "wise", "clever" or "intelligent", and "ṓn" - the present participle of "eimí" - which means "being", "existence", or "that which is")
Alternatively, along the same lines, would just be "Sentients"
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
And is further differentiated from "sentient" and "sapient" by admittedly vague qualifiers, but that's why the term "sophont" came about anyway. Sapience is raw intelligence, sentience is emotion: pleasure, pain, etc. (I get those two backwards all the time). Sophonce, then, is meta-cognition. This site had a good article on it.
$endgroup$
– Draco18s
Feb 21 at 18:00
add a comment |
$begingroup$
"Sophonts", plural of "Sophont", has commonly been used in Science-Fiction since the 1960s.
It is a term for an intelligent/sapient being (the Greek root words are "sophós", meaning "wise", "clever" or "intelligent", and "ṓn" - the present participle of "eimí" - which means "being", "existence", or "that which is")
Alternatively, along the same lines, would just be "Sentients"
$endgroup$
"Sophonts", plural of "Sophont", has commonly been used in Science-Fiction since the 1960s.
It is a term for an intelligent/sapient being (the Greek root words are "sophós", meaning "wise", "clever" or "intelligent", and "ṓn" - the present participle of "eimí" - which means "being", "existence", or "that which is")
Alternatively, along the same lines, would just be "Sentients"
answered Feb 21 at 12:02
ChronocidalChronocidal
5,7581728
5,7581728
5
$begingroup$
And is further differentiated from "sentient" and "sapient" by admittedly vague qualifiers, but that's why the term "sophont" came about anyway. Sapience is raw intelligence, sentience is emotion: pleasure, pain, etc. (I get those two backwards all the time). Sophonce, then, is meta-cognition. This site had a good article on it.
$endgroup$
– Draco18s
Feb 21 at 18:00
add a comment |
5
$begingroup$
And is further differentiated from "sentient" and "sapient" by admittedly vague qualifiers, but that's why the term "sophont" came about anyway. Sapience is raw intelligence, sentience is emotion: pleasure, pain, etc. (I get those two backwards all the time). Sophonce, then, is meta-cognition. This site had a good article on it.
$endgroup$
– Draco18s
Feb 21 at 18:00
5
5
$begingroup$
And is further differentiated from "sentient" and "sapient" by admittedly vague qualifiers, but that's why the term "sophont" came about anyway. Sapience is raw intelligence, sentience is emotion: pleasure, pain, etc. (I get those two backwards all the time). Sophonce, then, is meta-cognition. This site had a good article on it.
$endgroup$
– Draco18s
Feb 21 at 18:00
$begingroup$
And is further differentiated from "sentient" and "sapient" by admittedly vague qualifiers, but that's why the term "sophont" came about anyway. Sapience is raw intelligence, sentience is emotion: pleasure, pain, etc. (I get those two backwards all the time). Sophonce, then, is meta-cognition. This site had a good article on it.
$endgroup$
– Draco18s
Feb 21 at 18:00
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Well people does a pretty good job.
Some definitions for people mean exclusively humans
human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings.
But, some definitions relate more to multiple individuals
the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like
That said I'd probably go for folk.
people of a specified class or group
In some fantasy settings, you often see references to mer-folk or fey-folk, so folk on its own can encompass all races, while not relating to other creatures likes bears for example.
All quotes from www.dictionary.com
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Upvoted for folk
$endgroup$
– barbecue
Feb 21 at 18:18
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Well people does a pretty good job.
Some definitions for people mean exclusively humans
human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings.
But, some definitions relate more to multiple individuals
the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like
That said I'd probably go for folk.
people of a specified class or group
In some fantasy settings, you often see references to mer-folk or fey-folk, so folk on its own can encompass all races, while not relating to other creatures likes bears for example.
All quotes from www.dictionary.com
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Upvoted for folk
$endgroup$
– barbecue
Feb 21 at 18:18
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Well people does a pretty good job.
Some definitions for people mean exclusively humans
human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings.
But, some definitions relate more to multiple individuals
the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like
That said I'd probably go for folk.
people of a specified class or group
In some fantasy settings, you often see references to mer-folk or fey-folk, so folk on its own can encompass all races, while not relating to other creatures likes bears for example.
All quotes from www.dictionary.com
$endgroup$
Well people does a pretty good job.
Some definitions for people mean exclusively humans
human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings.
But, some definitions relate more to multiple individuals
the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like
That said I'd probably go for folk.
people of a specified class or group
In some fantasy settings, you often see references to mer-folk or fey-folk, so folk on its own can encompass all races, while not relating to other creatures likes bears for example.
All quotes from www.dictionary.com
answered Feb 21 at 11:28
K MoK Mo
2,149512
2,149512
1
$begingroup$
Upvoted for folk
$endgroup$
– barbecue
Feb 21 at 18:18
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Upvoted for folk
$endgroup$
– barbecue
Feb 21 at 18:18
1
1
$begingroup$
Upvoted for folk
$endgroup$
– barbecue
Feb 21 at 18:18
$begingroup$
Upvoted for folk
$endgroup$
– barbecue
Feb 21 at 18:18
add a comment |
$begingroup$
They all belong to their home planet, so why not calling them after what they have in common, eg. earthlings .
They could as well be "martians", "Alpha Centaurians" or whatever you want to call them.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
They all belong to their home planet, so why not calling them after what they have in common, eg. earthlings .
They could as well be "martians", "Alpha Centaurians" or whatever you want to call them.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
They all belong to their home planet, so why not calling them after what they have in common, eg. earthlings .
They could as well be "martians", "Alpha Centaurians" or whatever you want to call them.
$endgroup$
They all belong to their home planet, so why not calling them after what they have in common, eg. earthlings .
They could as well be "martians", "Alpha Centaurians" or whatever you want to call them.
answered Feb 21 at 14:42
MarvinMarvin
1713
1713
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The computer game Pillars of Eternity used "kith" to describe all sentient members of society, regardless of species. It worked well in a fantasy context.
The meaning is closer to "friends", but it's archaic enough that people don't use it outside of the the set phrase "kith and kin".
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The computer game Pillars of Eternity used "kith" to describe all sentient members of society, regardless of species. It worked well in a fantasy context.
The meaning is closer to "friends", but it's archaic enough that people don't use it outside of the the set phrase "kith and kin".
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The computer game Pillars of Eternity used "kith" to describe all sentient members of society, regardless of species. It worked well in a fantasy context.
The meaning is closer to "friends", but it's archaic enough that people don't use it outside of the the set phrase "kith and kin".
$endgroup$
The computer game Pillars of Eternity used "kith" to describe all sentient members of society, regardless of species. It worked well in a fantasy context.
The meaning is closer to "friends", but it's archaic enough that people don't use it outside of the the set phrase "kith and kin".
answered Feb 21 at 16:16
Carl KevinsonCarl Kevinson
48337
48337
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Peoples has historically been used when describing people of the world within different regions. For example, in Will Durant's The Story of Civilization:
The first principle of his policy was that the various peoples of his empire should be left free in their religious worship and beliefs, for he fully understood the first principle of statesmanship - that religion is stronger than the state.
This usage is specifically used for people of different ethnicities; I personally don't think there's a prejorative associated with its usage, so I think it's quite apt in this context.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Peoples has historically been used when describing people of the world within different regions. For example, in Will Durant's The Story of Civilization:
The first principle of his policy was that the various peoples of his empire should be left free in their religious worship and beliefs, for he fully understood the first principle of statesmanship - that religion is stronger than the state.
This usage is specifically used for people of different ethnicities; I personally don't think there's a prejorative associated with its usage, so I think it's quite apt in this context.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Peoples has historically been used when describing people of the world within different regions. For example, in Will Durant's The Story of Civilization:
The first principle of his policy was that the various peoples of his empire should be left free in their religious worship and beliefs, for he fully understood the first principle of statesmanship - that religion is stronger than the state.
This usage is specifically used for people of different ethnicities; I personally don't think there's a prejorative associated with its usage, so I think it's quite apt in this context.
$endgroup$
Peoples has historically been used when describing people of the world within different regions. For example, in Will Durant's The Story of Civilization:
The first principle of his policy was that the various peoples of his empire should be left free in their religious worship and beliefs, for he fully understood the first principle of statesmanship - that religion is stronger than the state.
This usage is specifically used for people of different ethnicities; I personally don't think there's a prejorative associated with its usage, so I think it's quite apt in this context.
answered Feb 21 at 14:53
crosshashcrosshash
511
511
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How about sapiens.
Humans are homo sapiens already.
HQ: All vehicles keep on the lookout for a sapien carrying a crossbow. Green hooded jacket, track suit bottoms, and trainers. Warning, may be chaotic evil.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How about sapiens.
Humans are homo sapiens already.
HQ: All vehicles keep on the lookout for a sapien carrying a crossbow. Green hooded jacket, track suit bottoms, and trainers. Warning, may be chaotic evil.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How about sapiens.
Humans are homo sapiens already.
HQ: All vehicles keep on the lookout for a sapien carrying a crossbow. Green hooded jacket, track suit bottoms, and trainers. Warning, may be chaotic evil.
$endgroup$
How about sapiens.
Humans are homo sapiens already.
HQ: All vehicles keep on the lookout for a sapien carrying a crossbow. Green hooded jacket, track suit bottoms, and trainers. Warning, may be chaotic evil.
answered Feb 21 at 15:23
chasly from UKchasly from UK
17.5k776153
17.5k776153
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Allkind?
Or "Everykind" or "Everykin". In a world where there are beings you would not describe as humans, but which are able to talk to us, and who live alongside us, it's likely that language itself would be different, meaning you'll have to coin some terms.
K Mo may be right about "folk" as a stand-in for human in a phrase like "We're all human." (I cynically suspect that the expressions between such races would tend to be more along the lines of "None of the rest of you are angels," but that's outside the scope of the question.)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Allkind?
Or "Everykind" or "Everykin". In a world where there are beings you would not describe as humans, but which are able to talk to us, and who live alongside us, it's likely that language itself would be different, meaning you'll have to coin some terms.
K Mo may be right about "folk" as a stand-in for human in a phrase like "We're all human." (I cynically suspect that the expressions between such races would tend to be more along the lines of "None of the rest of you are angels," but that's outside the scope of the question.)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Allkind?
Or "Everykind" or "Everykin". In a world where there are beings you would not describe as humans, but which are able to talk to us, and who live alongside us, it's likely that language itself would be different, meaning you'll have to coin some terms.
K Mo may be right about "folk" as a stand-in for human in a phrase like "We're all human." (I cynically suspect that the expressions between such races would tend to be more along the lines of "None of the rest of you are angels," but that's outside the scope of the question.)
$endgroup$
Allkind?
Or "Everykind" or "Everykin". In a world where there are beings you would not describe as humans, but which are able to talk to us, and who live alongside us, it's likely that language itself would be different, meaning you'll have to coin some terms.
K Mo may be right about "folk" as a stand-in for human in a phrase like "We're all human." (I cynically suspect that the expressions between such races would tend to be more along the lines of "None of the rest of you are angels," but that's outside the scope of the question.)
answered Feb 21 at 11:57
JedediahJedediah
1,849212
1,849212
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Disclaimer: this answer is useful only if your purpose is to write a novel set in a fictitious world.
You could create an ad-hoc word for it.
Since in world-building usually you create a world with its own mythology and history, you could use names or places from a suitable fictitious myth/legend/hystoric event to create a word to describe all sentient beings.
Just to give you an example.
You could set up a myth about the gods who created the first sentient being, whose name was - let's' say - "Olgon".
After a kind of crysis (something like Olgon disobeyed an order by the gods, or was too powerful/wise and the gods feared him...), Olgon was punished and his body divided into different creatures, from which descended all the different races of the world (elves, orcs, humans...).
So, the sentient beings in your world are defined "Orgonian" (or "Orgonites"), while the group of every sentient being is defined "the Orgonity".
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Disclaimer: this answer is useful only if your purpose is to write a novel set in a fictitious world.
You could create an ad-hoc word for it.
Since in world-building usually you create a world with its own mythology and history, you could use names or places from a suitable fictitious myth/legend/hystoric event to create a word to describe all sentient beings.
Just to give you an example.
You could set up a myth about the gods who created the first sentient being, whose name was - let's' say - "Olgon".
After a kind of crysis (something like Olgon disobeyed an order by the gods, or was too powerful/wise and the gods feared him...), Olgon was punished and his body divided into different creatures, from which descended all the different races of the world (elves, orcs, humans...).
So, the sentient beings in your world are defined "Orgonian" (or "Orgonites"), while the group of every sentient being is defined "the Orgonity".
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Disclaimer: this answer is useful only if your purpose is to write a novel set in a fictitious world.
You could create an ad-hoc word for it.
Since in world-building usually you create a world with its own mythology and history, you could use names or places from a suitable fictitious myth/legend/hystoric event to create a word to describe all sentient beings.
Just to give you an example.
You could set up a myth about the gods who created the first sentient being, whose name was - let's' say - "Olgon".
After a kind of crysis (something like Olgon disobeyed an order by the gods, or was too powerful/wise and the gods feared him...), Olgon was punished and his body divided into different creatures, from which descended all the different races of the world (elves, orcs, humans...).
So, the sentient beings in your world are defined "Orgonian" (or "Orgonites"), while the group of every sentient being is defined "the Orgonity".
$endgroup$
Disclaimer: this answer is useful only if your purpose is to write a novel set in a fictitious world.
You could create an ad-hoc word for it.
Since in world-building usually you create a world with its own mythology and history, you could use names or places from a suitable fictitious myth/legend/hystoric event to create a word to describe all sentient beings.
Just to give you an example.
You could set up a myth about the gods who created the first sentient being, whose name was - let's' say - "Olgon".
After a kind of crysis (something like Olgon disobeyed an order by the gods, or was too powerful/wise and the gods feared him...), Olgon was punished and his body divided into different creatures, from which descended all the different races of the world (elves, orcs, humans...).
So, the sentient beings in your world are defined "Orgonian" (or "Orgonites"), while the group of every sentient being is defined "the Orgonity".
answered Feb 21 at 17:43
McTroopersMcTroopers
6455
6455
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In RPG often used term is for that case is
Humanoids
=> are any creature shaped generally like a human (two arms, two legs, one head, or a humanlike torso, arms, and head), of Small or Medium size. Most humanoids can speak, and usually have well-developed societies.
link explaining + some races considered humanoid.
There are additional races depending on game and setting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanoid_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In RPG often used term is for that case is
Humanoids
=> are any creature shaped generally like a human (two arms, two legs, one head, or a humanlike torso, arms, and head), of Small or Medium size. Most humanoids can speak, and usually have well-developed societies.
link explaining + some races considered humanoid.
There are additional races depending on game and setting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanoid_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In RPG often used term is for that case is
Humanoids
=> are any creature shaped generally like a human (two arms, two legs, one head, or a humanlike torso, arms, and head), of Small or Medium size. Most humanoids can speak, and usually have well-developed societies.
link explaining + some races considered humanoid.
There are additional races depending on game and setting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanoid_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)
$endgroup$
In RPG often used term is for that case is
Humanoids
=> are any creature shaped generally like a human (two arms, two legs, one head, or a humanlike torso, arms, and head), of Small or Medium size. Most humanoids can speak, and usually have well-developed societies.
link explaining + some races considered humanoid.
There are additional races depending on game and setting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanoid_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)
edited Feb 21 at 14:55
answered Feb 21 at 14:49
LidzaLidza
1112
1112
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I've always liked "being(s)" in that place. I've read it that way in books before but of course I cannot recall those titles now. It works well in standards sayings; "We're only beings" "we're all beings" "anybeing" "everybeing" and funny enough, a few answers already used it to describe their chosen word without giving it any thought:
"Sophonts" ... is a term for an intelligent/sapient being
Allkind? Or "Everykind" or "Everykin". In a world where there are beings you would not describe as humans...
It can also be defined as:
A real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one.
Which could come in handy if any of your beings happen to be amorphous blobs of light.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I've always liked "being(s)" in that place. I've read it that way in books before but of course I cannot recall those titles now. It works well in standards sayings; "We're only beings" "we're all beings" "anybeing" "everybeing" and funny enough, a few answers already used it to describe their chosen word without giving it any thought:
"Sophonts" ... is a term for an intelligent/sapient being
Allkind? Or "Everykind" or "Everykin". In a world where there are beings you would not describe as humans...
It can also be defined as:
A real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one.
Which could come in handy if any of your beings happen to be amorphous blobs of light.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I've always liked "being(s)" in that place. I've read it that way in books before but of course I cannot recall those titles now. It works well in standards sayings; "We're only beings" "we're all beings" "anybeing" "everybeing" and funny enough, a few answers already used it to describe their chosen word without giving it any thought:
"Sophonts" ... is a term for an intelligent/sapient being
Allkind? Or "Everykind" or "Everykin". In a world where there are beings you would not describe as humans...
It can also be defined as:
A real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one.
Which could come in handy if any of your beings happen to be amorphous blobs of light.
$endgroup$
I've always liked "being(s)" in that place. I've read it that way in books before but of course I cannot recall those titles now. It works well in standards sayings; "We're only beings" "we're all beings" "anybeing" "everybeing" and funny enough, a few answers already used it to describe their chosen word without giving it any thought:
"Sophonts" ... is a term for an intelligent/sapient being
Allkind? Or "Everykind" or "Everykin". In a world where there are beings you would not describe as humans...
It can also be defined as:
A real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one.
Which could come in handy if any of your beings happen to be amorphous blobs of light.
answered Feb 21 at 18:00
SpartacusSpartacus
111
111
add a comment |
add a comment |
11
$begingroup$
What's wrong with the word "people" ?
$endgroup$
– Tim B♦
Feb 21 at 10:48
3
$begingroup$
Related: worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/129285
$endgroup$
– Kyyshak
Feb 21 at 10:49
1
$begingroup$
Thesaurus:humankind. You may also try oecumene or ecumene; while Wiktionary seems to believe that the primary meaning is now "unified Christianity", my copy of the OED doesn't even list this (American?) meaning and still gives "inhabited world" as the only meaning.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Feb 21 at 11:27
1
$begingroup$
Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself. Basically, it's made up of two separate words — "mank" and "ind." What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind (Jack Handey)
$endgroup$
– Michael Richardson
Feb 21 at 15:35
3
$begingroup$
Writers.SE is a good place for questions like this. The key is that the "best" word to use depends on what you want to convey to the reader, and what sort of upbringing the reader has. The answer changes based on the demographic of the audience.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
Feb 21 at 18:07