I will only take the second part of the question.I wrote something about this in Quora, England: What does the word ship mean at the end of a word like friendship?
If necessary, I can also translate the above answer into German, but I think it is easy to understand even with a low level of English knowledge.
* * * edit:
In the discussion on Andre Koppel’s answer, I maintain that the derivation of creating “-schaft” is wrong.This is something to argue about, so here are a few more clues.
Unfortunately, the Duden has long lost its authority as a brief documentation dictionary of the German language.The publishing house bows to the market, and in the eyes of linguists it has thrown away its reputation without need when it has become the medium of a spelling reform. It was a pity, because the original approach was not to write a rulebook of spelling (and much later nine other language aspects), but simply to examine what is common and to publish it. For a long time, the most common form was considered almost normative, which is also quite questionable, but was not to blame for the Duden.
The fact that “the Duden” (whichsource, this?) attributes the suffused morph “-schaft” to create, therefore unfortunately says little, except that the editors have joined a possible teaching opinion.However, this is by no means as well established as the entry reads. Certainly not when it comes to the word “property”. For comparison, two other sources:
Now the publicly editable Wikipedia and its daughters is not always a reliable source, even if the quality is now excellent on average.Unfortunately, this does not mean anything for the individual entry.
Hence here is a technical undisputed high-level source:
- etymologie.info, entry -schaft there search for -schaft (W3) and incl.
of the boxed entry from “the nobility”.
Aha.So it is probably not that clear. There are (at least) two explanations, and those who continue to research in etymological dictionaries will find variations of these two. I am saving myself corresponding dictionaries of other Germanic languages, which would be almost a medium research work.
But precisely as far as the word “property” is concerned, the derivation from creating is hardly plausible, the out of the sense form, personality on the other hand very much.Ganauso is usually argued whether one looks at Grimm or in the DWDS, or in other etymological dictionaries. That of the Duden editorial is just one of many, and by no means decisive. The editions of the source dictionary of the Dudenverlag are, for the sake of scarcity, all too little differentiated and hardly mention any unanswered questions.This is understandable from the approach of the publication, but not very scientific.
So far at this point.I do not want to write a dissertation on the subject, and certainly not within a Quora response.
Finally, a few examples to check the thesis of the general return of the morphem to the verb creation itself:
Hiking, team, friendship, property, readiness, domination…
(Tip: who or what actually creates what?Does the property create the “own” (i.e. the self) or is it the other way around? And what about the examples mentioned?)
I have opposed this thesis only because it is one-sided and incomplete.And this narrowing is called “wrong” in the sense of science. It remains a thesis in all its legitimate direction and idea, but thus by no means an image of “the” truth.