This paper argues that, in spite of apparent differences, French and Mandarin present numerous commonalities in their treatment of inalienable possession. Thus they both support the iconicity principle; make available alternative constructions rendering the inalienable salient so that the part-whole relation is attenuated or dispensed with; display marginal treatment of personal sphere items; and manifest inalienable possession structures that specialize in body part or kin terms. As the latter two categories do not co-occur in most constructions, it is suggested that they constitute two disparate classes which should not be indiscriminately related in a cross-linguistic prototype analysis of inalienability.