Universal #1590
Legacy number: 1590
| Number | 1586 |
| Original | An opposition of "alienable" and "inalienable" possession is almost inevitable in languages where possession is regularly head-marked. The alienable-inalienable opposition is almost never signaled by dependent-marked morphology. |
| Standardized | IF possession is regularly head-marked, THEN there will be an opposition of alienable and inalienable possession. BY CONTRAPOSITION: IF there is no opposition of alienable and inalienable possession, THEN possession is regularly dependent-marked . |
| Formula | possession regularly head-marked ⇒ opposition alienable/inalienable possession; ¬ opposition alienable/inalienable possession ⇒ possession regularly dependent-marked |
| Keywords | possession, alienable, inalienable, head-marking, dependent-marking |
| Domain | inflection, syntax, semantics |
| Type | implication |
| Status | achronic |
| Quality | statistical |
| 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: 576, Nichols 1992: 119 |
Discussion
Notes
1. Cf. #1589. 2. Klimov had a correlation between inalieanble possession and stative-active languages (#257). Nichols suggests a correlation between the alienability opposition and head-marking of possession. She explains the association with the stative-active type as follows: Since stative-active languages are generally head-marking (#437), it is to be expected that they will have head-marked possession in particular, and if they have head-marked possession it is to be expected that they will have an alienable/inalienable opposition. (Nichols 1992: 122)
Log in to join the discussion.
2. Klimov had a correlation between inalieanble possession and stative-active languages (<a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=257"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0">). Nichols suggests a correlation between the alienability opposition and head-marking of possession. She explains the association with the stative-active type as follows: Since stative-active languages are generally head-marking (<a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry"_id=437"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0">), it is to be expected that they will have head-marked possession in particular, and if they have head-marked possession it is to be expected that they will have an alienable/inalienable opposition. (Nichols 1992: 122)