Talk:inalienable

Inalienable noun class

In fact the words can, at least in Scottish Gaelic, be used with another possessive construction, but such use changes the meaning: some good examples are to be found here (9th - 12th paragraphs), (eg mo làmh - my hand can be put in the more usual Gaelic way as an làmh agam - the hand at me, but that would imply, for example, "a hand of cards"). Perhaps this might be incorporated on the page, but I've no idea how. --Duncan 09:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks, Petey. --Duncan 21:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

unalienable

I feel like this word should contain a link (and maybe some explanation for the spelling difference) to "unalienable". I believe the meanings are the same, but the "unalienable" spelling is what is used in the US declaration of independence, and it does have its own article here. I don't know enough about it to write anything useful. 68.236.68.19 21:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point – thanks!

I’ve written “Usage notes” in this edit which state that these are used interchangeably, though sometimes a distinction is drawn (though not specifically contrasted), and mentioned the Declaration, as it’s the best-known example.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Usage notes

Here is the 'overflow' from the usage notes. The usage notes went beyond the scope of a dictionary into the realms of an scholarly essay. A very good one, no doubt, but still not actual information on usage and so irrelevant. I'm sure we could write hundreds of lines on the usage of a common word like have, but that doesn't mean we should. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

usage notes

Regarding current usage being interchangeable:

The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing. Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away. However, the Founders used the word "unalienable" as defined by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1:93, when he defined unalienable rights as: "Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture."...in other words a person may do something to forfeit their unalienable rights...for instance the unalienable right to freedom which can be forfeited by the commission of a crime for which they may be punished by their loss of freedom. However, once they are freed after serving their punishment their right is restored.

In legal usage, Black’s 2004 defines inalienable as:

Not transferable or assignable. . . . Also termed unalienable.

In earlier legal usage the terms were distinguished, but not explicitly contrasted. Black’s 1910 defines inalienable as:

Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another such as rivers and public highways and certain personal rights; e.g., liberty.

while it defines unalienable as:

Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856) defines the terms as follows:

INALIENABLE. A word denoting the condition of those things the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. Public highways and rivers are inalienable. There are also many rights which are inalienable, as the rights of liberty or of speech.

UNALIENABLE. Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce, as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable in consequence of particular provisions of the law forbidding their sale or transfer; as, pensions granted by the government.

As per the United States Declaration of Independence, 1776: The, true, self-evident, natural rights, endowed by our Creator to LIFE, LIBERTY, THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS; as well as the right to FORM JUST GOVERNMENTS and OVERTHROW UNJUST GOVERNMENTS are unalienable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/us/politics/a-period-is-questioned-in-the-declaration-of-independence.html If Only Thomas Jefferson Could Settle the Issue By JENNIFER SCHUESSLER JULY 2, 2014

It is noteworthy that while Bouvier’s draws a distinction between the terms, it uses much the same examples (public roads, the right to liberty) for both, and does not specifically contrast them, nor is an example given of a thing that is one but not the other.

If there was a historical difference, it does not appear to be clear from the literature, and any such difference is now effaced.

Some authors draw a fine distinction, with unalienable being stronger and absolute, while (in this usage) inalienable is weaker and conditional. This draws on a more recent definition, given by the Missouri Court of Appeals, 1952:

Inalienable Rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.

The distinction is most often discussed, if at all, in the context of the Declaration of Independence, which uses the now less-common unalienable, but which is today frequently quoted using the now more-common inalienable, as in the 1997 film Amistad. Further, some drafts used inalienable, notably the draft by Thomas Jefferson. Most authorities consider this an insignificant stylistic difference, though some consider this a significant distinction.

References

RFC discussion: July 2014

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

inalienable

Contains a long discussion of the historical usage and significance of the terms inalienable and unalienable, to the point that the entry looks more like an essay (complete with footnotes) than a dictionary entry. Yes, it's discussing matters under a dictionary's purview- but not in the manner of a dictionary.

Can someone do some pruning and reformatting so that people don't keep adding to and footnoting it even more? Chuck Entz (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that we delete everything after the first sentence in the usage note. The essay could be moved to Wikipedia if anyone thinks it is sufficiently notable. Does anyone object? If so, perhaps some of the examples of historical usage could be moved to the citations page. Dbfirs 21:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

No argument from me, assuming you're just talking about the usage notes, and not the translations, etc. The person who added the essay certainly knows whereof he speaks, but this is a dictionary, not a collection of scholarly essays. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard of unalienable, is it just a rarer form? Does usage really suggest a difference between the two? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Done what Dbfirs suggested and left in the in-line citation so readers can click to read more if they so desire. The overspill from the usage notes is at Talk:inalienable#Usage notes and could be moved in part to the citations page if someone desires. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)