Talk:Inalienable possession

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Inalienable possession article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Linguistics: Theoretical Linguistics Mid‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Theoretical Linguistics Task Force.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2014. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of British Columbia/Linguistics (Fall 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

"Restricted to attributive possession"

In the "Restricted to attributive possession" section, the wording of this article implies that alienability is never distinguished in predicative possession, but the source paper doesn't put it in such certain terms. From page 85 of Cognitive Foundations of Grammar (emphasis mine):

There are quite a number of languages, spoken in all major parts of the world, that mark a morphosyntactic distinction between an inalienable and an alienable category. This distinction tends to involve the following properties [...]:

It is confined to attributive possession.

It may be that one of the sources the paper cites (Chappell, McGregor (1996). The Grammar of Inalienability: A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part-Whole Relation.) makes the stronger claim, but if so I think the citation should be switched to this work instead. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.35.165.93 (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In many languages, inalienable possession is expressed by attached affixes (not separate words). Not sure what's universal... AnonMoos (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]