I read a sentence in "The Hindu" which was:

Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi has said Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) chief Masood Azhar is in Pakistan, and asked India to give “solid inalienable evidence” for action to be taken against him

"Inalienable" means - (of a right) impossible to take away or give up

But does that fit here or should there be "irrefutable" instead?

  • People who think themselves important often use grand words without knowing their meanings. Often, their speeches are written by underlings. – Michael Harvey Mar 3 '19 at 13:29
  • 1
    I think this is most likely a mistranslation. Alienate and refute share the sense of "cancelling" or "abrogating" an existing situation, so it is very easy to imagine that a single word in the FM's native tongue might embrace both meanings in different contexts. – StoneyB on hiatus Mar 3 '19 at 14:36

I think "inalienable" is simply a mistake. I cannot see any relevant meaning, and "inalienable evidence" gets no hits in any of the corpora I've looked in, or in Google ngrams.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy