Verl and Verw
 

Guys

I presume the two words in the title are shorts for Verletzt and Verwundet.
Since both words seems to refer to wounded in Prien's loss lists I would be interested to know the difference between them.

Cheers
Stig

Re: Verl and Verw
 

Hi, Stig...

In German, verletzen is the verb to injure, or to hurt; verwunden is to wound. One therefore imagines that it would depend on how serious the individual was injured, that would determine the lesser (?) 'verletzt' as opposed to 'verwundet'.

Additionally, I suppose, it may be circumstance-specific, ie someone suffering a bullet wound would obviously be verwundet, as opposed to someone who injured themself during the course of a crash-landing eg, falling inside the fuselage during the landing and sustaining an injury, which may be more likely to be considered verletzt. Perhaps something a person more knowledgeable about the use of these terms in German, could clarify for us?

Regards...

Paul

Re: Verl and Verw
 

Verletzt: hurt, as i.e. in an accident. "Er ist in dem Unfall verletzt worden." (He was hurt in that accident.)
Verwundet: hurt or wounded, as in recieving an injury by somebody or something, i.e. in a war. "Er ist bei dem Angriff verwundet worden." (He was injured on/ during that attack.)

So, you got it pretty well, Paul.

Re: Verl and Verw
 

Gentlemen,

as far as the loss lists in our series are concerned, the difference between verw. - i.e. wounded - and verl. - i.e. hurt - is that in the first case the pilot in question was wounded through enemy action, whereas in the latter he was hurt by accident or any other reason not caused by the enemy. If for instance a pilot was shot down and had to crash land and got hurt while crash-landing his aircraft, we list him as verl. - hurt -, whereas if he was hit by splinters or bullets he would fall in the category verw.

Hope this helps.

Regards

Jochen Prien

Re: Verl and Verw
 

Hi, Christian & Jochen...

I am always amazed about the extent to which my schoolboy German comes in handy. Nice to know I wasn't too far off the mark... thank you both for keeping me on the right track... :D.

Regards

Paul

Re: Verl and Verw
 

Hi Stig,

I don't know the book by prien, but when I saw your thread title is thought this:

Verw = verwundet
Verl = verlust not verletzt

Where "Verlust" means "loss" (dead/KIA)

This sound more logic to me than using verwundet and verletzt next to each other, but maybe I'm wrong here.

Kind regards, Thomas

Re: Verl and Verw
 

Thanks to All who answered!

Never knew the German language was that clever that one could differentiate between what/who caused the injury itself. Since I haven't even a "school-boy's" studies to fall back on, it was really enlightening:)

Thanks again Guys

Cheers
Stig

Re: Verl and Verw
 

Until sometime between the mid-1970's and the mid-1980's when the new generation of liberal university graduates began redefining many words and political correctness began its relentless infiltration into the social fabric, American English used "wounded" to mean human injuries caused by violent interaction with an armed enemy. It was also occasionally used to describe injuries sustained by criminals who were shot or struck by the police.

"Hurt" or "injured", on the other hand, were used to describe all other causes of bodily harm. For example, a pilot who crashed on take-off and broke an arm would have been described as injured as was someone who broke a leg in a car accident.

So the words and context described by Dr. Prien, above, are very consistent with that used in the United States during WW II, the Korean War and the war in Vietnam. But no longer.

Re: Verl and Verw
 

Do not you think it is a pure stupidity or ignorance and not pc? A common occurrence I would say.

Re: Verl and Verw
 

Oh, please — we don't need an imaginary "PC conspiracy" to account for the evolution of language, or the fact that the world changes! In English-English that distinction between "wounded" and "injured" dould also apply, but I cannot remember any time in my life when it was a rigid division. It is less a question of a word's specific meaning than its sense, what it implies.

Question for Jochen: I've seen "unverl." in casualty reports (= unverletzt = unhurt) but never "unverwundet" — does that word exist in German?

Re: Verl and Verw
 

Nick,
unverletzt is a still existing expression.

Unlike the first, unverwundet would be very uncommon, esp. nowerdays. If it was used then, my guess would be, that the usual "logic" of not being injured would result in not being mentioned at all. Although sometimes you might stumble on a report, which states (generaly) "Ausfälle" (meaning causalities of any kind) followed by i.e. erkrankt, verwundet, verletzt (on the "un-" version of the latter two, if it were of relevance), vermisst, gefangen, gefallen etc.

Re: Verl and Verw
 

Possibly of interest in this discussion - two former Wehrmacht contacts I had rec'd injuries, the first had bullet wounds in his arm and the second lost a foot when the half track he was in rolled into a ditch. The first was awarded the Wound Badge (Verwundetabzeichen) in black the second got nothing - they were the best of friends but often had arguments about who should have got the award! Possibly shows difference between an injury and a wound?

David

Re: Verl and Verw
 

As you said there is a "Verwundetenabzeichen" but there is no "Verletztenabzeichen". In other words, you do recieve a recognition for injuries in a war, but you will never get a recognition for an injury due to an accident.