x.com/lost_nomad__/status/2102009701147803986

This linguistic contrast is too sweeping to be accurate.

English is a Germanic language. Cambridge's dictionary entry for Germanic explicitly says the group of Germanic languages includes English. Separately, Cambridge defines make money in English as "to earn money as a result of working or doing business."

So at least one major Germanic language—English—regularly uses "make money", not just an "earn/deserve" verb. That means the post's family-wide claim about Germanic languages is incorrect as stated.

This doesn't mean some Germanic languages never use verbs meaning earn for money; it means the blanket contrast "Germanic = earn/deserve" is false because English is a clear counterexample.

This claim adds a linguistic meaning that standard dictionaries do not support.

In French, gagner is not limited to "win" in the competitive sense. Larousse defines it as "Percevoir de l'argent comme rémunération d'un travail" — receiving money as remuneration for work — and also as receiving money from a transaction. That directly contradicts the idea that the verb inherently means taking money from someone else in a zero-sum way.

Italian shows the same pattern. Treccani defines guadagnare as obtaining profit from work, services, exchanges, or as compensation for effort or merit. Again, that is ordinary earning/compensation language, not a built-in claim that money only comes from someone else's loss.

And Romance languages are not even uniform on this point: Romanian dictionaries give face a sense of earning/accumulating money or wealth, i.e. effectively "make money." So the post's linguistic contrast is inaccurate twice over: it wrongly treats Romance/"Latin" languages as if they all say "win money," and it wrongly imputes a zero-sum meaning that the dictionaries do not give these verbs.