12

Both Behälter and Gefäß mean "container", but is there a difference in usage or are they equivalent?

phillico
  • 781
  • 3
  • 12

4 Answers4

12

Gefäß is restricted to movable containers which are not flexible and can contain liquids. Some examples:

  • Cages or most baskets are not called Gefäß because they cannot contain liquids.
  • Plastic bags, gourds or cardboard boxes are not called Gefäß because they are deformable.
  • Bottles, glasses, barrels, vases or drinking horns are called Gefäß.
  • Fixed tanks or lakes are not called Gefäß, as they are immovable.

Note that Gefäß can also mean vessel as in blood vessel.

Behälter can be used for any container, so every Gefäß also is a Behälter but not vice versa.

All the above is based on my perception of language as a native speaker. Especially in some exotic cases where these terms are rarely used, native speakers may disagree about the usage of these words.

Wrzlprmft
  • 21,865
  • 8
  • 72
  • 132
  • 1
    @Grantwalzer: I do not get what you are aiming at. Untreated skulls and horns cannot be used as containers, so the question does not arise. If you somehow managed to teleport the brain out of a skull and use it as a container for some other liquid you teleport in, then I would indeed call it a Gefäß. – Wrzlprmft Sep 07 '14 at 10:04
  • I think you also cannot call a cage a Behälter. It sounds very very weird to me. – gexicide Sep 07 '14 at 12:40
  • @gexicide: I don't think you'd use the term "container" for a cage either. – celtschk Sep 07 '14 at 13:38
  • No tissue or other bones attached. Just a skull and a horn lying around. To become Gefäße they require (at least a bit of) manufacturing. Most if not all drinking horns from this search were "treated" in some way (and if they were just flattened or polished). The teleportation you came up with contradicts your definition, but it would be a Behälter anyway. –  Sep 07 '14 at 15:11
  • You could of course use the skull as a Gefäß, but it still won't become a Gefäß because of that, like you could use it as a ball, and it still won't be one. Just try and find something that would normally be called a Gefäß (in the present sense), that was also not treated in any way. Lastly (and - since the rest of your definition goes hand in hand with it - most importantly), Duden uses the word hergestellt. Gefäße are hergestellt. It seems as if you were letting the word container influence your definition a bit too much –  Sep 07 '14 at 15:33
  • @Grantwalzer: Almost all conceivable objects called Gefäße (to either definition) are somewhat artificial and thus nobody before us will likely have ever thought about whether being artificial is inherent to the word Gefäß or just a consequence of the definition, as there simply never was the need for it. We could as well discuss whether the term Speer inherently implies artificiality. – Wrzlprmft Sep 07 '14 at 20:11
  • That is a very nice thought, and you are right that for some words (Speer excluded), it'd be pointless to discuss this aspect, but as per your definition, a dented stone would be a Gefäß, which it simply isn't. –  Sep 08 '14 at 01:02
  • @Grantwalzer: The point is that I have no problem with calling a peculiarly shaped stone Gefäß and one would have to conduct a survey to find out what the majority thinks, if it has any opinion on this at all – because at the end it hardly matters. – Wrzlprmft Sep 08 '14 at 07:15
  • This discussion made me ask this question on Linguistics. – Wrzlprmft Sep 08 '14 at 07:53
4

The DUDEN lists Behälter as a synonym for Gefäß. If you look at the root halten and vazzen, there is the common notion of keeping or holding something. Most of the time you could use them interchangeably: e.g. a bottle is both. If you look at the history of both terms, it seems that Gefäß is the much older term (DUDEN VOL. 7 lists a first usage of Behälter not earlier than the 15th century). It has its roots in givazi (~ vittels) or gafeteins (~ jewelery).

Behälter also is a more technical term, and is therefore used as a term in law (Verordnungen).

The German Wikipedia tries a definition

Die von der Norm getroffene Definition bedeutet, dass – im Unterschied zu beliebigen anderen Behältern – der Behälter gegenüber dem Medium, für das er konstruiert ist, dicht ist

Which translates to: all containers which are somehow impermeable in respect to the medium they contain are called Behälter, but that is artificial: A glass would be called Gefäß but not Behälter, but is impermeable for every liquid.

There is no sharp border, when to use which term.

Thomas Junk
  • 199
  • 4
  • 1
    That last definition may be better than you say: a drinking glass is not a Behälter, because it is not dicht, just turn the glass upside down if you don't believe me. Put a lid on the glass and you have a Behälter – Twinkles Sep 07 '14 at 07:51
  • @Twinkles yes, that's right. I thought a long timne over that. But on the other hand, they list a plastic bag (I'm thinking of shopping bags) - which is also open - as a Behälter. Even as a native speaker I find it hard to draw a line between one and the other. I am not philologist for german language. But if I were, my hypothesis would be, that Gefäß is mostly associated with traditional goods like milk, beer and so on like the root suggests (~vittels) and Behälter is only an abstraction from this "primary" use of such a container. – Thomas Junk Sep 07 '14 at 07:57
  • dense and dicht in the sense of non-leaky or impermeable are false friends. 2) It times, it’s impossible for me to tell whether you are describing definitions used in norms, etc. or everyday language. 3) The important aspect on oil tanks is that they not movable, which I indeed missed.
    • – Wrzlprmft Sep 07 '14 at 10:22
  • 1
    "restricted to X" does not mean "used for everything conforming to X", but "not used for anything not conforming to X". Therefore your Öltank example doesn't disprove the claim. – celtschk Sep 07 '14 at 13:35