It is also interesting to compare some translations into languages other than English. Genesis 2:23 is especially interesting, which the GNB renders as (emphasis mine)
Then the man said, “At last, here is one of my own kind — Bone taken from my bone, and flesh from my flesh. ‘Woman’ is her name because she was taken out of man.”
The English words "woman" and "man" resemble each other in form, just like the Hebrew words "אִשָּׁה" and "אִישׁ" that they are used to translate, but this is not true of their equivalents in every language.
The Septuagint has
καὶ εἶπεν ᾿Αδάμ· τοῦτο νῦν ὀστοῦν ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων μου καὶ σὰρξ ἐκ τῆς σαρκός μου· αὕτη κληθήσεται γυνή, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς ἐλήφθη αὕτη·
which makes somewhat less sense. There is no connection between the words "γυνή" and "ἀνήρ", even though the text seems (to my amateur Greek eyes) to imply one.
The Vulgate restores the connection between these words.
dixitque Adam hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis et caro de carne mea haec vocabitur virago quoniam de viro sumpta est
"Virago" is not the usual Latin term for a woman (Genesis 2:22 uses the more common "mulier"), but in this case it is substituted to convey the meaning of the Hebrew. I am curious how Symmachus dealt with this in Greek, but sadly his translation is lost.
Then we come to modern translations, which deal with this in a variety of ways. I will start with Dutch, because it is the only language other than English I can read fluently. One translation,
Het Boek, has
‘Ja, dit is wat ik nodig had!’ riep Adam uit, ‘zij is echt een deel van mijn lichaam. Ik zal haar mannin noemen, omdat zij is genomen uit de man.’
This follows the original Hebrew, but in an extremely awkward and jarring way. "Mannin" is not a word anyone has ever used or will ever use outside this context. It is an artificial formation from the word "man" and the feminine suffix "-in", comparable to saying "manness" in English, which strains credibility to breaking point in order to preserve the Hebrew correlation.
Another Dutch translation,
De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling, instead removes the implied connection between the commonplace words "vrouw" and "man".
Toen riep de mens uit: 'Eindelijk een gelijk aan mij, mijn eigen gebeente, mijn eigen vlees, een die zal heten: vrouw, een uit man gebouwd.'
This has a footnote explaining the connection between the Hebrew words. This is a much more natural way to translate the verse, without leaving any information out.
In French,
La Nouvelle Bible Segond handles things similarly.
L’homme dit : Cette fois c’est l’os de mes os, la chair de ma chair. Celle-ci, on l’appellera « femme », car c’est de l’homme qu’elle a été prise.
This also comes with a footnote to explain the original, but unlike
De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling, the French word "car" still implies a link where there is none between "femme" and "homme".
Compare, however,
Bible en français courant, which rephrases the verse entirely.
En la voyant celui-ci s'écria: « Ah! Cette fois, voici quelqu'un qui est plus que tout autre du même sang que moi! On la nommera compagne de l'homme, car c'est de son compagnon qu'elle fut tirée. »
This is saying that she is called "companion of man", because she was taken from "her companion". Again, it also has a footnote explaining what the original says.
Finally, let's take a look at
An Bíobla Naofa, the only complete modern translation of the Bible into the Irish language.
Dúirt an duine ansin:
“Is cnámh de mo chnámha-sa í seo ar deireadh,
Agus is feoil de m'fheoilse í.
Tabharfar bean (ís-seá) uirthi
Mar gur baineadh as an bhfear (ís) í.”
The Irish words "bean" and "fear", which have no connection with each other, are accompanied by the non-words "ís-seá" and "ís". These are actually Irish phonetic spellings of the Hebrew words "אִשָּׁה" and "אִישׁ", respectively. This technique serves the same function as the footnotes in the Dutch and French translations.
So, while none of Greek, Latin, Dutch, French or Irish has any resemblance between their usual words for "woman" and "man", they have tried various strategies to convey the meaning of the original Hebrew. Some of these are more literal, others are more natural, as is typical of Bible translations in general. But I do find the diversity of approaches fascinating.