Universal #1589

Legacy number: 1589

 Number  1585
 Original  The inalienables take marking which is more nearly head-marking or less dependent-marking than the marking of alienables.
 Standardized  Provided there is a split in the marking of possession, inalienable possession tends to be encoded through head-marking and alienable possession through dependent-marking.
 Formula  dependent-marked possession ⇒ alienable possession;
head-marked possession ⇒ inalienable possession
 Keywords  possession, inalienable, alienable, head-marking, dependent-marking
 Domain  inflection, syntax, semantics
 Type  implication
 Status  achronic
 Quality  absolute
 Basis  every language family and language isolate attested for North America (excluding only those six: Alsea, Beothuk, Cayuse, Kalapuyan, Molala, Yanan), also North Eurasian language families and several Australian languages
 Source  Nichols 1988: 578, Nichols 1992: 117

← Back to Universals Archive

Discussion
Counterexamples
In Dizi (Omotic, Afro-Asiatic), alienable possession is signalled by juxtaposition plus tone sandhi, while inlienable possession is marked by affixation on the possessor (Nichols 1992: 119).
Notes
Cf. #1590. So, IF possession is dependent-marked, THEN most commonly it is alienable;IF possession is head-marked, THEN most commonly it is inalienable.
Comment
Frans Plank · 3 Aug 2006
Cf. <a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=1590"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0">.
So,
IF possession is dependent-marked, THEN most commonly it is alienable;
IF possession is head-marked, THEN most commonly it is inalienable.