Talk:Inalienable possession

"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 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)
 * 1) It is confined to attributive possession."
 * 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)