Inalienable v. Unalienable

So with all the tea partying that has been going on, I've heard the phrase 'unalienable rights' several times in the last few weeks. It has given me pause each time, because I always thought the word was 'inalienable; 'unalienable' sounds wrong to my ear.

Always eager to be a pedant I decided to find out what the story is. It didn't take much googling before I found out that, 1) the word that appears in the Declaration of Independence is, in fact, 'unalienable', 2) both words are perfectly synonymous, although 'inalienable' is preferred by contemporary stylists.

"Well, that was anticlimactic," I think to myself.

Then I stumble upon this blog post which starts off something like this:

[Blah blah blah]

You pronounce “unalienable” as “un-a-LEEN-able”…but the only pronunciation I’m aware of is “uhn-eyl-yuh-nuh-buh l” (www.dictionary.com), as in alien, alienate, etc., with the accent always on the “a”.
[blah blah blah]
Best regards,

Tom

Hi Tom,

[Blah blah blah]
While most of the world seems to pronounce “unalienable” as “un-A-lee-un-a-ble,” I intentionally pronounce the word “un-a-LEEN-a-ble”.

Why? Because the meanings of the words “inalienable” and “unalienable” are vastly different and I wish to make absolutely clear whenever I use the latter instead of the former.

My pulse quickens: Could there be a more to the story? Some arcane distinction between the two? Perhaps they came from entirely different roots? Or maybe we have some subtle term of the lawyer's art? What fascinating oddity of the English language have I stumbled upon. I continue:

According to Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edition; A.D. 2004), the definition of “inalienable” is:

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

Um, okay. Not seeing the difference.

But if we go back to Black’s 2nd (A.D. 1910) we’ll see that “inalienable” was defined 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.”

Black’s 2nd defines “unalienable” as:

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

*Puzzled look* I read on,

At first glance the two terms seem pretty much synonymous.

To self: Well, yes they do.

However, while the word “inalienable” is “not subject to alienation,” the word “unalienable” is “incapable of being aliened”.

Clear as mud. How could I have missed that?

“Unalienable” is “incapable” of being aliened by anyone, including the man who holds something “unalienable”. Thus, it is impossible for any individual to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of an “unalienable Right”. it is impossible for you to take one of my “unalienable rights”. It is likewise impossible for me to even voluntarily surrender, sell or transfer one of my “unalienable rights”.
. . .
That which is “inalienable,” on the other hand, is merely “not subject to alienation”. Black’s 2nd does not declare that it’s absolutely impossible for that which is “inalienable” to be sold, transferred or assigned. Instead, I believe that “inalienable” merely means that “inalienable rights” are not subject to “alienation” by others. That is, no one can compel me to sell, abandon or transfer any of my “inalienable” rights. I am not “subject” to compelled “alienation” by others.

Uhhh. Come again? The definitions you gave seem to me to say that same thing. The fact that they were written by hand, and thus are not verbatim copies of one another does not alter the substantial identity of the two definitions:

Both say that such a thing cannot be aliened/alienated (these are synonyms with respect to property). Both definitions clarify that this means such things cannot be sold or transfered.

To bolster the case our author turns to another legal dictionary.

if we look at Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (A.D. 1856) we’ll see:

“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. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.”

Clearly, the words are not synonymous.

No that is not clear at all. Both definitions start by saying such things cannot be transfered. Both give the examples of public roads, and give as a further example basic human rights like liberty.

I conclude that while there may be some confusion between the two terms, “unalienable” offers great and absolute power while “inalienable” is far weaker, more conditional, and probably subject to at least some “alienation”.

I don't know how you can conclude that 'inalienable' means "subject to some alienation", when your favored definition of the term (from Black's 2nd ed.) starts, I quote, "not subject to alienation."

So why take a chance? Why not make it your business to ensure that every time you have a chance to use one word or the other you always choose to use “unalienable”? Why not use the exact word (“unalienable”) that was used by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence?

Actually that would mean using 'inalienable': The drafts that have been identified as being in Jefferson's hand use 'inalienable'.

While the words “inalienable” and “unalienable” have significantly different meanings, their “sounds” are almost identical and only a highly-tuned “ear” will note the distinction in sound and then meaning between them.

Wrong, and . . . wrong.

The meanings are (so far as your evidence has shown) the same.

The sounds do not require a highly-tuned ear to distinguish. That's how I got here in the first place: I heard a difference, a difference that I was not listening for.

And why are "sounds" and "ear" in quotation marks? Am I missing some innuendo?

I believe our modern gov-co fears and detests “unalienable” but doesn’t much mind that we use the word “inalienable”. The first term is lethal to gov-co powers; the second is not particularly threatening.

Right, The government knows that the people really do understand very different things by 'inalienable' and 'unalienable', and the government is really afraid to use the one because everyone knows it is so much stronger.

NEWS FLASH: Even if they once were distinguished (they do not appear to have been), no one recognizes that distinction today. NO ONE THINKS 'INALIENABLE' MEANS SOMETIMES ABLE TO BE GOTTEN RID OF! There is no motive for a conspiracy to abolish the use of one when everyone thinks they are synonymous.

Oh wait, maybe there is evidence:

I visited the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC about five years ago. I was amazed to see that the Jefferson Memorial includes an excerpt from the “Declaration of Independence” attributed to Jefferson that referred to our “inalienable Rights”. But the text of the Declaration of Independence” expressly refers to our “unalienable Rights”. Thus, the “Declaration of Independence” is misquoted in 12″ high letters that are carved in stone. I couldn’t be more surprised if the gov-co has misspelled Jefferson’s name.

I cannot believe that the designers and builders of the Jefferson Memorial misspelled “unalienable” or “accidentally” replaced “unalienable” with “inalienable”. This change was done intentionally and because the word “inalienable” is trivial while the word “unalienable” is powerful to a spiritual degree.

Again, there is no difference (so far as your tirade has shown) in the meaning of the words. The discrepancy between the words on the memorial and those on the official document may be due to the fact that Jefferson's drafts all used the word you allege is "trivial".

Therefore, I intentionally “mispronunciate” (as our former President Bush might say) the word “unalienable” to “jar” each listener’s “ear” and make absolutely clear that they’ve just heard the explosive “BOOM!” of a 50 caliber rifle every time I “pull the trigger” and not a mere bean blower’s “phfffft”.

When you invest words with made-up significance and then mispronounce them, you do not make your communication clearer. You do, however, manage to make yourself sound like a dumbass who doesn't know English.

If you will indulge me a pun:

When you speak an idiolect you sound like an idiot.

Credit due

The NYT as an institution is going to need to do a lot to recover from the smear campaign it has been waging against the Pontiff. But this op-ed by Ross Douthat is an excellent first step. I can't agree with every line, but overall it is stunningly perceptive and fair.

You should really read it, but here are a couple points that stuck out:

But there’s another story to be told about John Paul II and his besieged successor. The last pope was a great man, but he was also a weak administrator, a poor delegator, and sometimes a dreadful judge of character. . . . The church’s dilatory response to the sex abuse scandals was a testament to these weaknesses. So was John Paul’s friendship with the Rev. Marcial Maciel Degollado, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ.

Wait you mean it might not be appropriate to style JP II "the Great"? \sarcasm

JPII, for all accounts, was a great Archbishop. I have no doubt that he was a very holy man. He did a wonderful job of upholding the Church teaching on life-issues. He put out many documents that said the right things.

BUT, as an administrator, as a judge of character, as a leader of an international Church he left something to be desired. His actions and inactions often left the faithful scratching their heads, and more than once outright scandalized. In a time, that frankly, was chaotic in the Church (in every respect, doctrinal, liturgical, moral) John Paul II, said many good things, but what he did and did not do did little to clarify and regularize. For anyone who is unsure of what I could mean, I refer you to Fr. Brian Harrision's excellent article on the topic.

He goes on,

Only one churchman comes out of Berry’s story [about Marciel] looking good: Joseph Ratzinger. Berry recounts how Ratzinger lectured to a group of Legionary priests, and was subsequently handed an envelope of money “for his charitable use.” The cardinal “was tough as nails in a very cordial way,” a witness said, and turned the money down.

This isn’t an isolated case. In the 1990s, it was Ratzinger who pushed for a full investigation of Hans Hermann Groer, the Vienna cardinal accused of pedophilia, only to have his efforts blocked in the Vatican.

He lists several other cases in which Ratzinger was a prime mover in taking care of the dirty business, often when it was unpopular or opposed by others in the Vatican. This is a story that desperately needs to be told. The recently unearthed allegations, as Douthat says, are "more smoke than fire." The undisputed facts, regarding Ratzinger and clerical abuse, all point overwhelmingly to one conclusion: That Ratzinger was and is deeply committed to rooting out the filth that afflicts the Church, that he has done more than perhaps any other individual to correct the lamentable situation and ensure that such problems do not arise again. There are plenty of people who through malice or negligence deserve to be blamed, but Ratzinger certainly is very near the bottom of that list.

And he makes bold to say what some have only dared to think:

So the high-flying John Paul let scandals spread beneath his feet, and the uncharismatic Ratzinger was left to clean them up. This pattern extends to other fraught issues that the last pope tended to avoid — the debasement of the Catholic liturgy, or the rise of Islam in once-Christian Europe. . . . as unlikely as it seems today, Benedict may yet deserve to be remembered as the better pope.

Wow.

It really deserves a read. So off you go.

The anti-Catholic ravings of the NYT

The most recent NYT article on Benedict XVI is stunning: It alleges that "Pope Put Off Punishing Abusive Priest." Let me give you a few snippets to demonstrate the overall picture that they seem to be attempting to paint. Here's the first line:

That decision did not come for two more years, the sort of delay that is fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal in the church that has focused on whether the future pope moved quickly enough to remove known pedophiles from the priesthood, despite pleas from American bishops.

You see their interest?

It goes on:

The letter that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later pope, wrote in Latin in 1985, mentions Father Kiesle’s young age — 38 at the time — as one consideration in whether he should be forced from the priesthood.

So there they finally have what they have been searching for, right? The previous findings have, by their own admission failed to really place His Holiness in a conclusively incriminating position. But here they finally have a letter signed, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

In the Munich case on the other hand they had been left hanging. We have found that the priest in question was not from Ratzinger's diocese, that Ratzinger's knowledge of his misconduct was limited, and that the decision to give the priest pastoral duties was made by a delegate, without the Archbishop's direct knowledge.

Ditto the case of Fr. Murphy: Not only have we found that the letter questioning the prudence of a trial of Murphy was based on the fact that Murphy was very close to death (he died days after the letter was sent, at the time still officially under Ecclesiastical investigation), but there is no evidence that the decision was made by Ratzinger.

Of course the inconclusiveness of the evidence never stopped the media from publishing sensationalist, scandalous innuendo and making all sorts of nasty implications.

But now at last the AP/NYT media vultures have unearthed a letter signed by Ratzinger. You can imagine their sense triumph, salivating at the scent of clerical blood. The problem is that the letter, although certainly signed by Ratzinger, isn't actually incriminating at all. Let's considered the facts:

The priest had been convicted in court for his sexual indiscretions. Any disciplinary or punitive actions were the responsibility of the local bishop, (who details some of his some of his attempts to deal with the priest in a letter dated 19 June 1981).

The CDF was involved only because the priest himself had decided to leave the priesthood and wished to be released from his vow of celibacy. This is clear from the very first line of the very first letter sent to Rome: "I am writing to you concerning a petition of Stephen Kiesle for a dispensation from the obligation of the Priesthood, including that of celibacy." (Emphasis added.) Later letters are similarly clear. The request is from the priest himself, and it is primarily a request for a release from his vow of celibacy.

The bishop was not petitioning Ratzinger to take some punitive measure, he was not asking the CDF to conduct a trial, he was asking, on behalf of the priest himself, that the (no longer active) priest be allowed to marry.

Trying to construe this as Ratzinger "puting off punishing", or refusing to "force [a paedophile] from the priesthood" is simply preposterous: the request in question originated from the priest himself, and has nothing to do with punishment.