Which reminds me that "humans" actually derives from the Latin "humus" (ground, soil and, wait for it,
earth). So, Humans are ultimately named after their own planet, just like the other species. Yatta!
Errr... no. "Human" derives from the Latin "Humanus" which was the adjective form of "Homo", which means "Man".
That's correct, but incomplete, since
"homo", in turn, stems from the Proto-Indoeuropean root for
"earth". I did not mean to delve into reconstructed etymology, but if you are interested:
wikionary said:
homo:
Latin
Etymology
From
Old Latin hemō, from
Proto-Indo-European *dʰǵʰm̥mō (“earthling”). Cognates include Old Lithuanian
žmuõ (“man”) and Gothic
guma.
Cf. also
nēmō (“no one”) < *ne hemō.
Proto-Indo-European *
dʰǵʰm̥mon- is a derivative of
*dʰéǵʰōm (“earth”), whence also Latin
humus. Thus, same
Proto-Indo-European root gave both the nouns for
man and
earth; compare similar semasiological development in Semitic languages: Hebrew
אָדָם (adam, “man; soil”).
Also,
"homo" means "person", not "man" (that would be
"vir"). So Beverly Crusher would definitively be a
human (and a fine specimen, I would add

).
Quod erat demonstrandum.