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. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | 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"
editIn 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)
- 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)