Many languages lack a direct equivalent of the English word trust

Evidence

Finally, note a peculiar implication of an ordinary-language analysis of trust. Anyone who wishes to make trust a simple primitive or who wishes to take it as a deontological moral concept should have trouble with real-world experience, which often lacks any such notion. (A deontological concept is universally applicable and derivable from pure reason.) Even today, many languages have no direct, perspicuous equivalent of the term. — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 300

Categorization

Category: Factual Claims

• CANDY: Nice conversation fact: Norwegian and Egyptian Arabic have nouns for trust but no verb for it; Japanese’s common trust term was invented about a century ago as a probable English neologism.
• QUESTION: Worth chasing: what does it mean for a social-theoretic primitive that whole languages lack a dedicated trust verb?

Related

• Trust’s meaning varies radically across ordinary-language users (similarity 0.81)
• Trust is almost entirely absent from moral philosophy proper (similarity 0.79)
• Trust is an over-flexible concept that demands precise definition. (similarity 0.79)
• Defining trust requires grounding it in mutual dependency relations (similarity 0.78)