Talk:inalienable

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Renard Migrant in topic RFC discussion: July 2014
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Inalienable noun class

[edit]

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)Reply

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

unalienable

[edit]

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)Reply

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)Reply

Usage notes

[edit]

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)Reply

RFC discussion: July 2014

[edit]

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.


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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply