Okay, sounds like you're making a completely subjective assessment, based on your own preferences. Totally fine, but does not mean I'm wrong. One thing that would really help would be if there were a definitive case where it did not fit.
Do you speak Dutch? Anyway that 95% number seems also fetched from your personal experience, because the meaning of 'chill', in my experience, is just too different for that.
Here's an example which (again, for me) doesn't quite fit: when talking about a party with music and dancing and saying it is 'chill' we'd mean that it was relaxed, enough space to dance, no drunk idiots, fun overall, and so on. We might add to it that it was 'gezellig', not use instead, but then we'd mean there were also lot of friends around and/or new friends being made. While there's a link with being chill, they could just as well be orthogonal. Like 'it was gezellig but too bad it was so crowded' means it wasn't chill at all.
Thanks for providing an example, that's what I was wondering about. I don't need to speak Dutch to make a valid argument, based on the synonymous examples already observed, that is a genetic fallacy. Yes, 95% number was contrived for the sake of conversation, based on the article. ChatGPT estimated it's actually around 70%. Sounds like its meaning is incredibly nebulous but maybe a blending of chill and friendly.
I think one major difference is that it’s easy to chill on your own.
It’s really hard for something to be gezellig when you are alone, it almost always refers to the people around you, or a location that you’d be happy to meet people. Like, an empty house or cafe is basically never gezellig.
My god I never expected that would be so hard to explain.
Yeah, you can be cozy on your own, which is why it’s not a perfect translation.
Like, you could go by yourself to a little out of the way cottage, hearthfire burning, super cozy! But it’s not gezellig, because there’s no other people involved.
Did you mistake me, or did I somehow come off as excessively self-righteous?
