Uninflectability is notable because it defies our expectations and holds theoretical significance. I ask why inflection is typically expected and why its absence is important. Uninflectability is distinguished from related phenomena like syncretism and defectiveness. And rather than viewing it as an absolute, I identify a scale between fully inflected and uninflected items, where parts of a paradigm may remain uninflected. Using Canonical Typology, I identify four criteria which enable us to investigate uninflectability: (1) the extent of uninflectability across items, (2) the extent of uninflectability within individual items, where paradigms may be partially uninflected, (3) incoming conditions influencing uninflectability, and (4) outgoing requirements imposed by uninflectable items. The analysis draws on a wide range of languages, especially Slavonic and Nakh-Dagestanian languages, to refine definitions and explore the scope of uninflectability. Uninflectable items are more varied than most accounts allow for, and it is only when we map out the typological possibilities that we can appreciate their theoretical significance.1

1. In loving memory of Dr Julia Cissewski, linguist, primatologist, musician, activist.