# Die Schuld



## ampurdan

DEUTSCH:

Ich habe erst kürzlich gelernt, dass man im Deutsch für “guilt” und “debt” dasselbe Wort anwendet. Es ist mir aufgefallen. Es scheint, dass die Deutschsprechende nachdrücklich vor Verschuldung ekeln. Was meinen Sie? Ist die Verschuldung in den deutschsprechenden Kulturen unbeliebt? Mehr als an anderer Stelle? In bejahendem Fall, steht diese Auffassung im Zusammenhang mit der Tat, dass sie ganz egal beide Begriffe nennen?

ENGLISH:

I learnt recently that German uses the same word for “guilt” and “debt” (Schuld). I was somewhat amazed. It looks as if the German-speakers felt a strong aversion to get into debt. What do yo think? Are indebted people frowned upon in German-speaking cultures? More than elsewhere? If they are, is this conception in connection with the fact that they name both ideas the same?


----------



## tvdxer

I don't consider it that odd of a connection.  The older form of the English Paternoster (Lord's Prayer), and that found in most bibles, goes "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors" (KJV).


----------



## ampurdan

Actually, my teacher told me that the Bible had something to do with it. She did not explain any further, so I don't know exactly when in history that connection begins. The passage of the Bible you refer to, in its Latin version at least, has also "debt".

Anyway, German has kept that connection, and not other languages.

For instance, to say "you owe me 40 euros" in German you would say (among other possibilities): "du schuldest mir 40 Euro", which might sound like: "you _guilt_ me 40 euros". I found it a little strong, but I know that it's a very subjective appreciation.

"Guilt" has very bad connotations.  There's nothing wrong in owing someone something. You could owe someone even your life, and it would sound a little odd to me seeing "guilt" involved in it. 

Of course, I'm perfectly aware that German-speakers can tell both concepts apart, but I'd like to know if they or anybody else thinks that this association of ideas in fact explains something of German culture.


----------



## aleCcowaN

tvdxer said:


> I don't consider it that odd of a connection.  The older form of the English Paternoster (Lord's Prayer), and that found in most bibles, goes "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors" (KJV).


And in X century anglo-saxon:

And forgief ūs ūre gyltas, swa swa we forgiefaÞ ūrum gyltendum

gyltas = plural, accusative of gylt (debt, transgression)

(from Indo-European Philology - W.B. Lockwood - 1969 - /Spanish version/)


----------



## heidita

Ich glaube nicht, daß das was mit der deutschen Kultur zu tun hat. Es gibt so viele Worte, die eine zweite Bedeutung haben, daß ich es als sehr weit hergeholt finde, daß man hier eine "Schuldkultur" finden will.


----------



## .   1

There is a strong connection between debt and guilt in my society.
Nobody likes to owe something to somebody.
It is always a matter of pride to pay off all debts.
It is a right of passage for some people to hold a ceremonial burning of the mortgage documents to show that they are free of debt.
Indebted people are frowned upon and the more in debt the more wrinkles in the frownings.  
Bankrupts are socially and professionally stigmatised, except for the vanishingly small number who fully discharge their debt and wear this as a badge of honour.

People who pay cash are rewarded with a discounted price or some bonus of some form.
Debtors pay through the nose initially and are then subject to Shylockian repayment conditions.

The word debtor exists and is seldom complimentary but I just can't think of a word meaning cash payer.

.,,


----------



## übermönch

As Heidita said, I also hardly can believe that the linguistic similarity between 'schuldig sein' and 'schuld sein' can have some reason deep in Germanic cultural traits. Though I never borrowed anything from any non-German person, I can say for certain that neither my compatriots nor the one Persian guy felt especially guilty after losing things lent from me


----------



## Kajjo

German _Schuld_ can be blame, debt and guilt. The concepts are quite close in my opinion, since all three focus on_ something too less_ _which has to be compensated for_ like money, responsibility or morals. The Lord's prayer has been mentioned and is a good linguistic example, because sins have a rsemblance to debts and guilt. While all English translations I know call Latin _debita_ _= debts, _in German both _Schuld _(guilt, blame) and _Schulden _(debts) are used:

_ [Elberfelder] und vergib uns unsere Schulden, wie auch wir unseren Schuldnern vergeben
[Luther] Und vergib uns unsere Schuld, wie wir unseren Schuldigern vergeben. 
_ 
I don't think that these linguistic specialties have anything to do with how financial debts are valued in Germany. As Heidita pointed out, there are very many German words with multiple meanings, both of close and distant varieties.

However, you are right that Germans usually are not happy to be in debt. This, I believe, has more to do with basic traits of our people rather than with this particular word.

Kajjo


----------



## Whodunit

I agree with the other native German speakers that the word alone has nothing to do with our bahavior. I don't think linguistic problems can influence a folk in general. 

Maybe it would be helpful if you wrote down some typical sentences (except for the prayer) where "debt" and "guilt" (and even "blame") can be used interchangeably (i.e. the meaning is the same), if that's possible, and some other sentences where one can't replace the other word; in English, of course. We could translate them into German and see if we have to use different words for the English nouns as well, or if one word ("Schuld") suffices.


----------



## jester.

I'd like to mention something which has not yet been mentioned explicitly: debts are in German "die Schulden" (plural) whereas guilt is "die Schuld" (singular).

I'm quite sure that there is no case in which the singular word could mean "debt" or in which the plural word could mean "guilt".

Furthermore I agree with what has been said about the idea that Germans (or the German speaking people) have a more negative opinion on debts than other people. I think that debts are something negative in all cultures and they are not more negative in the German culture.


----------



## .   1

jester. said:


> I think that debts are something negative in all cultures and they are not more negative in the German culture.


I think that this is true of all emotions in all cultures.
We are all in this mess together.

.,,


----------



## audia

When I came to Germany a long time ago I was amazed at how little they like to be in debt. In America debt is a tool e.g. Many college students are in debt, most home owners are in debt,not to mention credt card debt and financing of household items such as cars, furniture,stereo systems etc. I was shocked that Germans have so little debt as compared to Americans. I don't know if it is linguistically connected but definately avoided here more than in the 
US.
The only connection I see is when you are in debt you owe s.o. s.t. Money or perhaps an apology( If it was your fault)
Take a look at another word in 
German:Enschuldigung to releive oneself of the Schuld.


----------



## ampurdan

Kajjo said:


> However, you are right that Germans usually are not happy to be in debt. This, I believe, has more to do with basic traits of our people rather than with this particular word.





Whodunit said:


> I agree with the other native German speakers that the word alone has nothing to do with our bahavior. I don't think linguistic problems can influence a folk in general.


What about behaviour or conceptions influencing language?



Kajjo said:


> German _Schuld_ can be blame, debt and guilt.


I hadn’t thought about English “blame”… Mainly because Spanish uses the same word for "guilt" and "blame"and I see no real difference between both ideas: one is the objective state of guilt, the other one is the act of saying or thinking that someone is guilty of something. Thus, it’s perfectly comprehensible for me that German shares the same word for these two too.



Whodunit said:


> Maybe it would be helpful if you wrote down some typical sentences


I’m not sure if that’s what you’re advising me to do, but here are some attempts at translation:

I assume the debt -> Ich übernehme die Schuld. 

I bear the blame -> Ich trage die Schuld.

I blame you for that -> Ich beschuldige dich dem / Ich gebe dir daran die Schuld.

I’m guilty -> Ich bin schuldig.

I feel guilty -> Ich bin schuldbewusst.

It’s my fault / I’m to blame for it -> Es mir schuld ist / Ich bin daran schuld. 

I admit my guilt -> Ich gestehe meine Schuld.

I’m racked with guilt -> Ich bin von Schuld heimgesucht.

I owe you my life -> Ich schulde dir mein Leben / Ich bin dir mein Leben schuldig.

I acquit a debt -> Ich zahle eine Schuld ab.

I amortize a debt -> Ich tilge eine Schuld.

He forgives/remits a debt -> Er erläßt eine Schuld. 

He forgives me -> Er entschuldigt mich.




heidita said:


> Ich glaube nicht, daß das was mit der deutschen Kultur zu tun hat. Es gibt so viele Worte, die eine zweite Bedeutung haben, daß ich es als sehr weit hergeholt finde, daß man hier eine "Schuldkultur" finden will.


Wie soll ich hier „Schuldkultur“ verstehen? Wie: „culture of debt“ oder „culture of guilt“? 

Humm… The fact that two words are homonyms (“bank” (of snow) and “bank” (finance house) for instance) does not imply any relation between both words. Usually, they share forms just because of because of the phonetic evolution of the language.

Instead, when a word is polysemic, that is, it has more than one meaning, the further meanings are usually somehow connected to the first one. Let’s take “house”. House is primarily a dwelling place. When I say “the House of Windsor” I’m not talking about “dwelling places” but, however far this phrase is from that first meaning, we can still see a connection between both meanings: Windsor is a family name, that is, a name that parents “bequeath” to their children and these children to their children and so on. Usually, people who shared a family name lived in the same house for many centuries. So, we took the word “house” to refer to the people who share the same descent and family name. I doubt that in the language of a nomadic culture, for instance, this association of ideas would have ever been made.

Some time in history, German-speakers (or some German writers) decided that the word “Schuld”, which primarily meant A, from then on would also mean B, settling a connection between both meanings. Perhaps it was Luther, when translating the Bible or perhaps it was just the people, I don’t know, but whoever it was, they did it for some reason. 

1. This reason might be valid also nowadays or might be not. For instance, it might be valid if Germans nowadays considered that being indebted is somehow shameful.

2. If there is an association of ideas in a given language, it does not imply that the same association has to be in the mind of its speaker, but the speaker of a language with this association is more likely to “contaminate” one meaning of the word with the connotations of the other one, than a speaker of a language without the association. 

I think that at least Spaniards don’t turn up their nose at debt. In fact, many things are bought by borrowing money. For instance, Spaniards like to be the owners of their homes, even if this means that they won’t pay off the mortgage up to 30 years from the first installment. This does not happen in other countries.


----------



## aleCcowaN

I got the text of Paternoster in Gothic (about 350AD), though this language is far from modern German:

Jah aflet uns Þatei skulans sijaima, swaswe jah weis afletam Þaim skulam unsaraim.

skulans = nominative  masculine  plural  of  skula, an adjective meaning  "indebted",  like  ancient Lithuanian "skolà" (debt) "skìlti" (to get into debt)

The association between guilt and debt in Germanic seems extended, and perhaps we should look at the law in those ancient and obscure times: *Das Wehrgeld*, "a reparational payment usually demanded of a person guilty of homicide or other  wrongful death, although it could also be demanded in other cases of serious  crime."

In times of personal law, for example, in  Merovingian France, a Ripuarian should pay 900 solidus for the death of a bishop; an Alammanian, 960. Wehrgeld and ordeals were the law for Germanic people until ninth century, even eleventh in many lands. I imagine there was a strong association like "you killed, then you have to pay, thus you are indebted". 

But thinking about German people being reluctant to be indebted makes me take a look in other social aspects. Maybe, it might be some influence of protestant "salvation by faith" some-kind-of-versus catholic "salvation by works". We were always taught here that "salvation by faith" and God's approval of that faith was meant to be shown through prosperity of the believer, and being indebted might show God's dissatisfaction with the individual's faith, being this beliefs very compelling in many parts of Europe, then constructing industrial and prosperous societies.

I don't remember much of German history, but maybe a set of historical, economical and social events between Reformation and the Thirty Years' War would have modeled this actual debt-fearing character that our German fellows seem to show, no matter those causes -religion included- are probably far from their minds today.

Are there any regional difference between Länder? I mean, more or less debt-prone?

[Sorry for my bad English and worse German]


----------



## ampurdan

aleCcowaN said:


> I got the text of Paternoster in Gothic (about 350BC)


 
Where did you get that from? A Gothic Prayer of the Lord from 350 years before Christ might make the foundations of Christian faith tremble! 

Just kidding.

Thank you for your post, Alex. I think it makes much sense.


----------



## aleCcowaN

ampurdan said:


> Where did you get that from? A Gothic Prayer of the Lord from 350 years before Christ might make the foundations of Christian faith tremble!
> 
> Just kidding.
> 
> Thank you for your post, Alex. I think it makes much sense.


Oh! I'm sorry! I already corrected it. (Just looked The Shawshank Redemption again and maybe thinking in Rachel's poster "1,000,000BC" ).

I'm looking forward to what our German mates think about this theory. I'm think is plausible.

Ale*c *


----------



## heidita

Funny, but it has already been pointed out that Schuld is used only in singular meaning "guilt". 



> Originally Posted by *heidita*
> Ich glaube nicht, daß das was mit der deutschen Kultur zu tun hat. Es gibt so viele Worte, die eine zweite Bedeutung haben, daß ich es als sehr weit hergeholt finde, daß man hier eine "Schuldkultur" finden will.





> Wie soll ich hier „Schuldkultur“ verstehen?





> Wie: „culture of debt“ oder „culture of guilt“?


 
So this could only mean guilt culture.


----------



## gaer

heidita said:


> Funny, but it has already been pointed out that Schuld is used only in singular meaning "guilt".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So this could only mean guilt culture.



And it's a rather rare word in German. When used, it is not used specifically in relationship to Germany.

I think we are on a wild goose chase.

In addition, if there has not be an extremely close connection between debt and guilt, why were there "debtor prisons"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debtor's_prison

I see no specific connection between guilt and debt that is peculiar to Germany.

Gaer


----------



## Kajjo

ampurdan said:


> I’m not sure if that’s what you’re advising me to do, but here are some attempts at translation:



Maybe we should discuss these linguistic rather than cultural question in the German forum?
 


> I assume the debt -> Ich übernehme die Schulden. Guilt and debt are usually easy to distinguish, because debt almost always requires the plural form! Guilt always requires the singular.
> 
> I bear the blame -> Ich trage die Schuld.
> 
> I blame you for that -> Ich beschuldige dich <>. / Ich gebe dir daran die Schuld.
> 
> I’m guilty -> Ich bin schuldig.
> 
> I feel guilty -> Ich fühle mich schuldig.
> 
> It’s my fault / I’m to blame for it -> Es mir schuld ist / Ich bin daran schuld.
> 
> I admit my guilt -> Ich gestehe meine Schuld.
> 
> I’m racked with guilt -> Ich bin von Schuld heimgesucht.
> 
> I owe you my life -> Ich schulde dir mein Leben besser: Ich verdanke Dir mein Leben! / Ich bin dir mein Leben schuldig.
> 
> I acquit a debt -> Ich zahle eine Schuld ab.
> 
> I amortize a debt -> Ich tilge eine Schuld.
> 
> He forgives/remits a debt -> Er erläßt eine Schuld (guilt). Er erläßt mir meine Schulden. (debts)
> 
> He forgives me -> Er entschuldigt mich. Er verzeiht mir.


----------



## ampurdan

Kajjo said:


> Maybe we should discuss these linguistic rather than cultural question in the German forum?


 
I was asking for a German cultural issue in relation with language. For that, the translation of these sentences is very helpful but incidental, in my opinion. 

Many of you, Muttersprachler, have said that there's a difference between "die Schuld" (sing.) and "die Schulden" (pl.). It seems that this difference did not exist in past times, so it's also interesting to know how the language has evolved to make difference.

Besides, apparently in some instances (eine Schuld abzahlen) you can use still today "Schuld" with the meaning of "debt" and anyway, any of the forms Schuld, schuld, Schulden and schulden look and sound much alike. 

So, I wonder if you would prefer to say, for instance: "Ich verdanke dir mein Leben" rather than "Ich schulde dir mein Leben", because the second one has some negative connotation. 

Taking Spanish as an example, the word "deber" can mean "to owe", "must", "duty", "debt" and "homework". I think that the meaning of duty contaminates somehow all the other meanings. If you think in English, it's not the same thing name something "homework" as, for instance, to name it "duty". The second one is a little bit stronger, although the connection between both is self-evident. However, I don't know that the word "deberes" influences Spanish-speaking children attitude towards homework in a way that "homework" does not with regard to English-speaking children.


----------



## Kajjo

ampurdan said:


> So, I wonder if you would prefer to say, for instance: "Ich verdanke dir mein Leben" rather than "Ich schulde dir mein Leben", because the second one has some negative connotation.


Yes. I would even dare to say that "Ich schulde Dir mein Leben" is idiomatically wrong and extremely seldom used. From a contemporary point of view it would mean something along "I should give you my life" instead of "I live because of what you did.". 

_I owe you my life = I verdanke Dir mein Leben._

Kajjo


----------



## ErOtto

ampurdan said:


> DEUTSCH:
> 
> Es scheint, dass die Deutschsprechende nachdrücklich vor Verschuldung ekeln.


 

Interessant finde ich, dass zwar sämtliche Bedeutungen des Wortes behandelt wurden und trotzdem etwas "übersehen" wurde (es sei denn ich habe es übersehen  ).

Wenn ampurdan Verschuldung im finanziellen Sinne meinte, dann "ekeln" sich deutsche schon lange nicht mehr vor Verschuldung. Mittlerweile sind ca. ein Drittel der deutschen Haushalte nicht nur *ver-* sonden *überschuldet*  . Die Zahl der privanten Insolvenzen steigt in den letzten Jahren stetig.

Schon mal die "Staatsverschuldungsuhr" in Berlin gesehen? Die letzte Zahl ändert sich so schnell, dass mann sie gar nicht mehr erkennen kann.  

Gruss
ErOtto


----------



## Aurin

Zwischen Schuld und Schulden besteht durchaus ein Zusammenhang. Im folgenden ein Auszug aus dem etymologischen Wörterbuch der Gebrüder Grimm:

*1) *_seiner herkunft entsprechend bezeichnet_ schuld _zunächst etwas, was man soll oder schuldig ist, eine verpflichtung oder eine leistung, wozu man verbunden ist. doch ist diese verwendung nur in den früheren perioden der deutschen sprache lebendig_
_ _
*2) *_in der neuern sprache ist die verwendung von_ schuld _auf einen speciellen fall eingeschränkt, nämlich auf die verpflichtung zu einer geldzahlung, die aus einem vorhergegangenen darlehen erwächst, das geld, das man von jemand entliehen hat und ihm zurückzuzahlen verpflichtet ist; ganz analog dem lat. debitum und seinen romanischen nachkommen._
_ _
_*3)*_  _vielfach wird_ schuld, _namentlich in der neuern sprache, in freierer verwendung gebraucht von andern verpflichtungen als zu geldzahlungen; doch liegt auch hier meist die vorstellung zu grunde, dasz diese verpflichtung auf einer vorausgehenden leistung des gegenparts beruht, sodasz für das heutige sprachgefühl eher eine freiere ausdehnung der bedeutung_ 2, _als ein fortleben der allgemeineren verwendung_ (1) _vorliegt._
_ _
*4) *_die letztere verwendung vermittelt den übergang zu der jetzt gewöhnlichen bedeutung von_ schuld '_culpa_', _ein begangenes unrecht, das wieder gut gemacht, gesühnt werden musz. diese ausdrucksweise entspricht der altgerm. rechtsanschauung, dasz eine übertretung durch zahlung eines wergeldes oder einer busze ausgeglichen werden kann, ebenso aber auch der kirchenlehre, die für jede sünde eine satisfactio operis verlangt._ schuld _in diesem sinne ist daher namentlich in kirchlicher redeweise heimisch und steht gern in verbindung mit_ sünde, _doch ist dabei der nebenbegriff der drückenden verpflichtung zu einer sühne noch im sprachbewusztsein lebendig. _


----------



## gaer

ErOtto said:


> Interessant finde ich, dass zwar sämtliche Bedeutungen des Wortes behandelt wurden und trotzdem etwas "übersehen" wurde (es sei denn ich habe es übersehen  ).


Perhaps you are specifically referring to this:


ampurdan said:


> DEUTSCH:
> Es scheint, dass die Deutschsprechende nachdrücklich vor Verschuldung ekeln. Was meinen Sie? Ist die Verschuldung in den deutschsprechenden Kulturen unbeliebt? Mehr als an anderer Stelle?
> ENGLISH:
> 
> It looks as if the German-speakers felt a strong aversion to get into debt. What do yo think? Are indebted people frowned upon in German-speaking cultures? More than elsewhere?


In fact, I thought this was acccepted as true with far too little objection, so I have been waiting for something like this:


			
				ErOtto said:
			
		

> Mittlerweile sind ca. ein Drittel der deutschen Haushalte nicht nur *ver-* sonden *überschuldet*  . Die Zahl der privanten Insolvenzen steigt in den letzten Jahren stetig.


For those who don't read German, summing up (you can correct me if you wish to add more or correct):

_Meanwhile a third of German households are not merely *in* debt but *heavily in debt*.  The number of bankruptcies has climbed steadily in recent years._

In other words, the idea that Germans are somehow more horrified by debt than people in other countries because "debt" and "guilt" happen to share the same letters (Schuld) is pure bunk! 

Gaer


----------



## Aurin

ampurdan said:


> Actually, my teacher told me that the Bible had something to do with it. She did not explain any further, so I don't know exactly when in history that connection begins. The passage of the Bible you refer to, in its Latin version at least, has also "debt".
> 
> Anyway, German has kept that connection, and not other languages.
> 
> For instance, to say "you owe me 40 euros" in German you would say (among other possibilities): "du schuldest mir 40 Euro", which might sound like: "you _guilt_ me 40 euros". I found it a little strong, but I know that it's a very subjective appreciation.
> 
> "Guilt" has very bad connotations. There's nothing wrong in owing someone something. You could owe someone even your life, and it would sound a little odd to me seeing "guilt" involved in it.
> 
> Of course, I'm perfectly aware that German-speakers can tell both concepts apart, but I'd like to know if they or anybody else thinks that this association of ideas in fact explains something of German culture.


 
 
It would be interesting to know how other countries use the terms. Swedish also has the same word.: skuld – guilt  and skulder – debt. Also the English word debt can have the meaning of “sin” (guilt).


----------



## EmilyD

I want to thank those who have translated the German!  My question is: what about in *Yiddish*.?  

There must be some amongst us who can comment on how close those terms and concepts are in Yiddish...

Great topic.


_Nomi_


----------



## Veggy

I have been reading something interesting lately. Heidegger (Sein und Zeit maybe?) speaks of existence as guilt while it owes itself to something else therefore is in debt. It is interesting to see that  the concept that follows is thinking as a grateful act which would be the cause of the similarity between Danken and Denken. But this is for another thread I suppose.
Aurin asks how the terms are used in other countries, well in Italy they are two separate words: colpa e debito which have nothing in common. It would be interesting to know what they are in Latin.
I think that the words debts and debitors in the Padrenostro have no relation with the German concept of debt.


----------



## Aurin

EmilyD said:


> I want to thank those who have translated the German! My question is: what about in *Yiddish*.?
> 
> There must be some amongst us who can comment on how close those terms and concepts are in Yiddish...
> 
> Great topic.
> 
> 
> _Nomi_


 
I don´t speak Yiddish, I only saw in the dictionary that there are two words: khoyv for debt and shuld for guilt.


----------



## Aurin

Veggy said:


> I have been reading something interesting lately. Heidegger (Sein und Zeit maybe?) speaks of existence as guilt while it owes itself to something else therefore is in debt. It is interesting to see that the concept that follows is thinking as a grateful act which would be the cause of the similarity between Danken and Denken. But this is for another thread I suppose.
> Aurin asks how the terms are used in other countries, well in Italy they are two separate words: colpa e debito which have nothing in common. It would be interesting to know what they are in Latin.
> I think that the words debts and debitors in the Padrenostro have no relation with the German concept of debt.


 
Quite interesting what you wrote. I found the German text of Heidegger where he says: "Man könnte Schuld als «schulden haben» auffassen, oder als «schuld sein an», jedoch das wäre stets eine Schuld gegenüber Anderen." 
and 
"Eine Möglichkeit ergreifen heißt auch immer eine für die andere aufgeben - sich an der nicht gewählten schuldig zu machen. Die Sorge selbst ist also ihrem Wesen nach nichtig. Dies macht das *Schuldigsein* des Daseins aus.  Damit steht die existenzial-ontologische Schuld nicht im Zusammenhang mit dem Bösen (als Mangel an Gutem), noch basiert sie auf Moralität, sondern macht diese erst möglich. Auch braucht Schuld kein Schuldbewußtsein, da Schuldig_sein_ ursprünglicher ist als jedes _Wissen_ darum."


----------



## Veggy

Hi Aurin, what I wrote I read in the italian translation. Could you translate your post n.29? If it's not a problem. Thanks


----------



## Aurin

"et dimitte nobis debita nostra, 
sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris" 
In the Latin version also is spoken about debt because guilt in Latin is "culpa".
In the earlier German versions of  the Pater Noster first they spoke about "Schulden" (debt) then they changed to "Schuld" (guilt) but in all versions is spoken about "Schuldiger".


----------



## Aurin

Veggy said:


> Hi Aurin, what I wrote I read in the italian translation. Could you translate your post n.29? If it's not a problem. Thanks


I´ll try it with in my poor English, maybe someone can correct it and continue:
"You could conceive “Schuld” as to have debts or as to be guilty, but in both cases it would be a “Schuld” towards others humans.
To embrace a possibility also means to give up one in favour of the other (possibility)- to be guilty of the not chosen possibility. “


----------



## JanWillem

Aurin said:


> It would be interesting to know how other countries use the terms.



In fact, we (Dutch) use exactly the same word, for the same purposes. Only pronounciation is different (both the 'sch' and the 'u')

_In Dutch_,
Schuld (singular) can refer to blame, guilt. 
Schulden (plural) refers to a financial debt.
But when this financial debt is specified, for example by saying how high it is, the singular 'schuld' is used too:
"I've got a lot of <schulden>" (general)
"I've got a <schuld> _of 400 euro_" (specification).


----------



## Lugubert

JanWillem said:


> _In Dutch_,
> Schuld (singular) can refer to blame, guilt.
> Schulden (plural) refers to a financial debt.
> But when this financial debt is specified, for example by saying how high it is, the singular 'schuld' is used too:
> "I've got a lot of <schulden>" (general)
> "I've got a <schuld> _of 400 euro_" (specification).


In Swedish, we use _skuld_ and _skulder_ in exactly the same way.

There is also the spelling _skull_ (known since the 16th C) in "för min skull", 'for my sake', and in several idiomatic phrases.

Just for fun (Bara för skojs skull)...


----------



## aleCcowaN

I found references on the web about the same word meaning guilt, debt and duty in primitive Indo-European. This Preliminary Indo-European Lexicon has this: 

271-72 dhl̥gh-   debt, duty, guilt

This page containing Etruscan phrases compares with Sanskrit (and other languages)

RNin, adj.,  indebted, obliged [m],. a debtor;
saRNa, adj., having debts, indebted;
RNa, adj., guilty [n], guilt, debt, obligation,
RNadhAray, to  be indebted to

A quote from "Seven Lessons on Metaphor" by Emilio Rivano Fischer 




> Take "guilt". Let's say you feel guilt. You may feel,  then, "as if you haven't paid a debt". There is a metaphor lurking here, pairing  GUILT with DEBT. Well, say you "pay the debt" (although no real debt or payment  were involved), and you "feel relieved". The feeling of guilt was a "burden".  So, there is another metaphorical understanding of GUILT AS BURDEN. And this may  help you understand an author or text that talks about guilt, say, from a  psychological perspective, and works out the economical metaphor, and combines  it with the physical weight metaphor, and draws conclusions about what guilt is,  and claims to explain the mechanisms of guilt, and how to deal with it, etc.


From "The Economics of Hospitality" by Jim Vinh


> The failure of hospitality to actualize itself, however, does not constitute  a mere absence, but denotes a special kind of lack which is hospitality's very  manner of existence -- a condition of existence which Heidegger calls  Schuldigsein, which, not surprisingly, can be translated as a debt or guilt.  Both debt and guilt do convey a certain sense of loss or absence, as if there  was something missing that needed to be either paid back or redeemed, but  Schuldigsein differs from this kind of payable debt in the sense that it is  characterized by a certain Nichtigkeit -- a nullity, not-ness, or a negation.  While it can accurately describe a debt as an outstanding sum of money which is  not paid back, Nichtigkeit as not-ness or nullity goes one step further beyond  this convention. Unlike a debt, a monetary debt for example, this Heideggarian  nullity does not envision an absence or lack of something that marks an  imperfection or flaw, but it is a lack which constitutes the very basis of  being. As Heidegger writes, "Being-the-basis of a nullity" introducesthe idea of the "not" which lies in the concept of guilt as  understood existentially [and] excludes relatedness to anything present-at-hand  which is possible or which may have been required ... so any possibility that,  with regard to Being-the-basis for a lack, the entity which is itself such a  basis might be reckoned up as "lacking in some manner," is a possibility which  drops out (BT, 329).​



I pasted all this just to show there is a philological and maybe psychological link between debt, duty and guilt in all Indo-European languages. I suppose our primitive grand grand grand grand... grand parents had institutions like Germanic *Wehrgeld*, a sort of deal to pay one's Schulden. The word evolved to skula (Gothic, a Germanic people migrated from actual Sweden, with much influence of Baltic and Sarmatian), culpa (Latin), etc.

Germanic languages, as many have said, kept the guilt-debt meaning in the same word. English got the influence of Latin through old French and adopted legal institutions from Roman origin, then becoming "debts" the Anglo-Saxon "gyltas". The influence of both Roman and Germanic institutions in the British Islands is well documented between 5yh and 11th century. Welsh law about 950AD has two words for witness: gwybyddiad, literally "he who has seen", the eye witness, and tyst, from Latin "testis", the character witness or the one who has witnessed some documents, a more advanced law came from Roman institutions.

Then in Roman languages guilt and debt followed different paths, in the Germanic ones, the relation was kept. English, a unique language, took one word from each of its linguistic foundations. About other languages, Indo-European, Semitic, Fino-Ugrian, etc., somebody will tell.


----------



## Veggy

Aurin said:


> I´ll try it with in my poor English, maybe someone can correct it and continue:
> "You could conceive “Schuld” as to have debts or as to be guilty, but in both cases it would be a “Schuld” towards others humans.
> To embrace a possibility also means to give up one in favour of the other (possibility)- to be guilty of the not chosen possibility. “


 
Thank you Aurin for the translation. As for the second part, they say that Heidegger was probably influenced by Goethe who said (approx.) that the one who acts is guilty.


----------



## ErOtto

gaer said:


> In other words, the idea that Germans are somehow more horrified by debt than people in other countries because "debt" and "guilt" happen to share the same letters (Schuld) is pure bunk!
> 
> Gaer


 
I totally agree with you.  
Without feeling "schuldig".  

ErOtto


----------



## Hutschi

ampurdan said:


> DEUTSCH:
> 
> I learnt recently that German uses the same word for “guilt” and “debt” (Schuld). I was somewhat amazed. It looks as if the German-speakers felt a strong aversion to get into debt. What do yo think? Are indebted people frowned upon in German-speaking cultures? More than elsewhere? If they are, is this conception in connection with the fact that they name both ideas the same?


 
Hi, the connection is not as strange, as you might think. The roots are already in the etymology of the word "Schulden/Schuld". 

http://www.judithbentele.de/judith/uni/examenskursetymologie.pdf



> (< 8.Jhd.) nhd. *Schuld* f., ahd. *sculd*(a), aus g. **skuldi*- f. ‚*Schuld’*. Verbalabstraktum zu dem in sollen vorliegenden Verb. Dessen Ausgangsbedeutung ist ‚*schulden’*, so dass das Nomen ursprünglich
> ‚*das Geschuldete’* bedeutet. Verb: *schulden*, Adjektiv: *schuldig*, Täterbezeichnung:
> *Schuldner* ...


 
Schuld (new high german, female), old high german sculd(a), from germanic: *skuldi (female) "Schuld".
It is a verbal abstractum to the ver form "sollen". Its original meaning was "schulden" (owe, be indebted to) and the original meaning was "the things to be indepted to"). Different forms are derived: "schulden" (debt, obligation, something owed), adjective "schuldig" ...

The connection to "guilty" is, that if there was a crime, the criminal had to pay for it in an appropriate manner. This could be money, animals (fee), (Auge um Auge, health, for example: Auge um Auge, Zahn um Zahn - an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,) or life.


---

(Sorry, I just see, that it was already on the second page in Aurin's article. I do not delete it, because it gives a source.)


----------



## Aurin

aleCcowaN said:


> I found references on the web about the same word meaning guilt, debt and duty in primitive Indo-European. This Preliminary Indo-European Lexicon has this:
> 
> 271-72 dhl̥gh- debt, duty, guilt
> 
> This page containing Etruscan phrases compares with Sanskrit (and other languages)
> 
> RNin, adj., indebted, obliged [m],. a debtor;
> saRNa, adj., having debts, indebted;
> RNa, adj., guilty [n], guilt, debt, obligation,
> RNadhAray, to be indebted to
> 
> A quote from "Seven Lessons on Metaphor" by Emilio Rivano Fischer
> 
> From "The Economics of Hospitality" by Jim Vinh
> 
> I pasted all this just to show there is a philological and maybe psychological link between debt, duty and guilt in all Indo-European languages. I suppose our primitive grand grand grand grand... grand parents had institutions like Germanic *Wehrgeld*, a sort of deal to pay one's Schulden. The word evolved to skula (Gothic, a Germanic people migrated from actual Sweden, with much influence of Baltic and Sarmatian), culpa (Latin), etc.
> 
> Germanic languages, as many have said, kept the guilt-debt meaning in the same word. English got the influence of Latin through old French and adopted legal institutions from Roman origin, then becoming "debts" the Anglo-Saxon "gyltas". The influence of both Roman and Germanic institutions in the British Islands is well documented between 5yh and 11th century. Welsh law about 950AD has two words for witness: gwybyddiad, literally "he who has seen", the eye witness, and tyst, from Latin "testis", the character witness or the one who has witnessed some documents, a more advanced law came from Roman institutions.
> 
> Then in Roman languages guilt and debt followed different paths, in the Germanic ones, the relation was kept. English, a unique language, took one word from each of its linguistic foundations. About other languages, Indo-European, Semitic, Fino-Ugrian, etc., somebody will tell.


 
Extremely interesting, so we can summarize that there exists a relation between “Schuld” and “Schulden”.  The English term for Wehrgeld is Weregild. You can read about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild


----------

