Latin was masculus and femella, old French was masle/male and femelle/femaile, modern "English" is male and female. We didn't take one from Latin and one from French -- we took both from French. It doesn't make any sense that "male" was taken from "masculus" when "masle" was already in use.
-- if 'masculus' comes from (Sanskrit) 'marya', then it means "a mortal". The implicit meaning is evident in the more direct Latin form "maritus" (see English 'to marry'), the husband, meaning "you now have a role in which you shall behave aware of your mortality - i.e., as an "adult"".
-- 'femina' comes from the nourishing ability of giving milk, ex 'felo' (the act of sucking, related to "fecunditas" (the condition that allows it - implying the ability to host a "fetus") and giving "felicitas" ("happiness" in the typical derived meaning, of the /pleasant/ occasion)).
But easily, 'male' and 'female' then adapted to similar form being used for polar concepts.
But it doesn't.
In which sense? Most of the content of post-Latin languages seems to be post-Sanskrit. Not necessarily as a direct derivation, but as a full appearance: you normally can see the Sanskrit dropped into Greek dropped into Latin (whatever the path, descendants or siblings).
Because evidence is that the Sanskrit terminology is massively present in this modern language and defines it; hence, awareness of Sanskrit is fundamental for awareness of the current language - which is the important thing. You could say that if they were unrelated, it would be the most extraordinary coincidence, and if their relation is not of «descende[nce]» that has much more relevance for historians than for language users, kind of mandated to know said language in depth.
In fact,
> pseudoscience
with all that scindere, do not forget the point which is that of understanding phenomena to better know them, activity more of needles than of scissors (don't overcut, the purpose is different).
I am not sure what else you may mean by "comes from".
>Because evidence is that the Sanskrit terminology is massively present in this modern language and defines it;
There is no such evidence in modern linguistics.
>hence, awareness of Sanskrit is fundamental for awareness of the current language - which is the important thing. You could say that if they were unrelated, it would be the most extraordinary coincidence, and if their relation is not of «descende[nce]» that has much more relevance for historians than for language users, kind of mandated to know said language in depth.
They are related. Latin, Sanskrit, Russian, English, Greek, German, Persian, Bengali, etc are all descended from Proto-Indo-European. Knowing one is not any better than knowing any other in terms of awareness of meanings in other Indo-European languages.
Thing is, we do not have Proto-Indo-European. So, we have to somehow reconstruct it in the investigation of terms. Sanskrit just seems to be a close enough derivation of PIE to shed invaluable light over the kernel meaning of the elements of these languages.
> There is no such evidence in modern linguistics
'Evidence': vid, veda, vitti, vidura, vidvas, vidyā... 'Modern': mā, mātrā, medhā... 'Linguistics': lal, lalanā... 'There': tar-hi... 'No': an...
> They are related. Latin, Sanskrit, Russian, English, Greek, German, Persian, Bengali, etc are all descended from Proto-Indo-European. Knowing one is not any better
Of course they are related. The comparative consideration of Latin, Greek and Sanskrit reveals a network of meanings propagating in all those derivations. Without such consideration, awareness is bound to remain poor - you are losing pieces of the puzzle. Persian and Bengali, I do not know (almost at all); others, I have explored but have not found the same productive richness in light shedding over the matter. English: well it is to understand English (and French, Spanish etc.) that you may want to undertake the endavour, and the awareness comes from considering 'knowledge' out of jñāna, gnō̃́sis and gnosco (but especially jñāti, diánoia, nobilis) - it is not a matter of knowing «one». For those who have familiarity with Latin and Greek, Sanskrit appears to be a very important piece, to reconstruct the network of meanings and better define their common core meaning.
Sanskrit is one of the languages that was used by comparativists to reconstructed PIE. Trying to use Sanskrit "to shed invaluable light over the kernel meaning of the elements of these languages" is no better than using those languages to shed light over Sanskrit.
>'Evidence': vid, veda, vitti, vidura, vidvas, vidyā... 'Modern': mā, mātrā, medhā... 'Linguistics': lal, lalanā... 'There': tar-hi... 'No': an...
That's not evidence of anything.
But they seem to have the same meaning. The identified root seems to be "mṛ", that of mortality, and they may (/may/, with relevance to the content this paragraph) come from it; that one term in Sanskrit in inherited by Greek and then Latin is the «come from» I meant.
> and 'marya' does not seem to mean mortal
So where does it come from? According to some authors, 'marya' comes from "mṛ" just like 'martya', which you state has a different root. Edit: disambiguation: of course 'marya' is used for "young man". But it seems to mean "a "mortal", someone ready (initiated, young man, no more a child) to develop his defined (limited) path of life".
Given the article's premise of words being unrelated, I'd say that's more of a massive plot hole than a "nit."