Is Ona'as Devarim considered a subset of damage?
On the one hand: you can't be forced to pay for it. As discussed in this answer:
R' Meir of Rottenburg holds that O'naas Devarim (the sin of hurting someone's feelings with words...) is actually punishable by lashes. He explains this is because money doesn't help. So, another punishment that is fitting is used instead.
The Mordechai also holds that the punishment is lashes. Those that argue with them about lashes, admit that money is no substitute either. (The Bes Yosef questions their opinion about lashes in Choshen Mishpat 1).
And, as I commented on that answer,
I'll add to that ... the Gemara in BM 58b, discussing why Ona'as Devarim is worse than normal Ona'ah, that R' Shmuel bar Nachmani's understanding is that Ona'as Devarim can't be repaid, while Ona'ah can.
If something is considered damage, you can be forced to pay for it. If it's not considered damage, you cannot be forced to pay for it. This point is brought out more clearly in the Hezik Re'iyah sugya (BB 2a-3a) and the Hezik She'eino Nikar sugya (Gittin 53a). From the fact that Ona'as Devarim cannot be punished monetarily, it must be that it's not considered damage.
On the other hand: Ona'as Devarim is a subset of Ona'as Mamon. It's derived from the fact that Ona'ah is written twice (Vayikra 25:14,17, as derived in BM 58b). Ona'ah, in turn, could have been derived from Gezeilah, were it not for specific details of Ona'ah that don't exist by theft (BM 61a). Otherwise, though, Ona'ah might as well have been the same as Gezeilah. Thievery, in turn, is a type of damage (BK 4b). As we just said Ona'as Mamon is a subset of Gezeilah, it, too, is a type of damage. And as Ona'as Devarim is a subset of Ona'as Mamon, it, too, must be a type of damage.
Again, if something is considered damage, you can be forced to pay for it. And yet, Ona'as Devarim cannot be forced to be paid for. Does this not leave us with a paradox? What is wrong with these lines of reasoning, as both cannot possibly be correct?