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:Um, okay. Not seeing the difference.
“Not transferable or assignable. . . . Also termed unalienable”.
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.”
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.
When you speak an idiolect you sound like an idiot.
It's legalese. Here's the difference: think of the two as In-alien-able and Un-a-lien-able, the difference being "alien" and "lien". Alien is something foreign, a lien is something to hold as debt. Colloquially these are similar, but legally, which is what it is entrenched in, these are very different applications. You can waive your inalienable rights and after you have waived them you cannot have them back to invoke at a later time. Unalienable rights cannot be waived. So you can sign away your unalienable rights but still invoke them at a later time since they never left you in the first place. If you waive your unalienable rights the courts don't even have a way to acknowledge that. It's literally logically incoherent like saying "This statement is false" or "This cup of water is empty" or "I found the circle's corner".
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: Citation needed. Simply reiterating the point doesn't make it so. Please provided me an example of some reputable authority who uses the words in the ways you suggest they must be used, drawing the distinction you insist must be drawn.
ReplyDeleteCheers