In many languages, English included, there is only one grammatical word class for nouns—namely, nouns. Other languages, however, make more fine-grained distinctions within this category. One of the most common such examples is the division of nouns into two separate classes: alienable and inalienable ones. Alienable nouns can be alienated, i.e., they can stand on their own without any indication of their owner (e.g. a dog). Inalienable nouns, by contrast, cannot be alienated, i.e., their owner must be expressed every time they are used. In other words, inalienable nouns are obligatorily possessed.
Baniwa, an Arawak language spoken in Northwestern Amazonia, is one of the languages which makes this distinction. Alienable and inalienable nouns in Baniwa are formally distinct, which means that they have different inflection patterns and different ways of combining with other words. In example (1a), the inalienable noun -nóma ‘mouth’ is preceded by a hyphen to indicate that it cannot stand alone without its possessor (i.e., one cannot say ‘one mouth’ using this form), whereas the alienable noun tsíino ‘dog’ in (2a) can. In (1b) and (2b), both nouns are shown with a first person singular possessor (‘my X’). Note that while –nóma (1b) simply takes the person marking prefix no-, tsíino (2b) needs to be converted into an inalienable version with the suffix –ni (the * in example (2c) means that the expression is unaccepted by native speakers).
(1) a. -nóma b. nonóma
'(someone's) mouth' no-noma
1sg-mouth
'my mouth'
(2) a. tsíino b. notsínoni c. *notsíino
'dog' no-tsiino-ni no-tsiino
1sg-dog-DPTZ 1sg-dog
'my dog' 'my dog' (intended)Thus, in Baniwa, alienable nouns can be converted to inalienable ones in order to mark their possessor. But how about the other way around? As it turns out, inalienable nouns can be converted into alienable ones, too. (3a) shows the inalienable noun –eenípe, which means ‘child’ in the sense ‘offspring’, as in ‘my child’ in (3b). In (4), –eenípe has been converted to an independent noun by means of the prefix i– and the suffix –tti, which is necessary for it to be able to stand without a possessor. Interestingly, this conversion process is accompanied by a change in meaning—from ‘offspring’ to ‘young human being’ (which can both be referred to by ‘child’ in English).
(3) a. -eenípe b. noenípe
'(someone's) child (offspring)' no-eenipe
1sg-child
'my child (my offspring)'
(4) ienipétti
i-eenipe-tti
INDL-child-NMLZ
'child (young human being)'This meaning change illustrates quite well the kinds of nouns which typically fall into the two categories: inalienable nouns typically include kinship relations (like –eenípe) and body part terms (like –nóma). A child, in the sense of ‘young human being’, does not denote a kinship term, but an individual which is not defined by its relationship to any other individual—thus, it makes sense for this meaning to belong to the alienable category.
The alienable/inalienable distinction is found in languages all over the world, but is most common in the Americas.
Sources
Ramirez, H. (2001). Uma Gramática do Baniwa do Içana. Ms.
Ramirez, H. (2001). Dicionário da Língua Baniwa. Manaus: Universidade do Amazonas.
Wikipedia page on Inalienable Possession
World Atlas of Language Structures: Chapter on Obligatory Possessive Inflection
World Atlas of Language Structures: Map of Obligatory Possessive Inflection