2040: Sibling-in-Law

2018-09-02T18:00:52Z

JulesG: Your second cousin's father or mother might only be a first-cousin-once-removed-in-law if married to one of your parents first cousins.

{{comic
| number = 2040
| date = August 31, 2018
| title = Sibling-in-Law
| image = sibling_in_law.png
| titletext = FYI, it turns out "...because I haven't figured out whether he would be my brother-in-law or not" does NOT qualify as a "reason why these two should not be wed."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an out-law - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic shows the complicated way that English refers to {{w|sibling-in-law}} family relationships. As shown in the comic, your sibling's spouse would be called your "sibling-in-law" (either brother-in-law, or sister-in-law). However, your spouse's brother or sister is also called the same way (brother-in-law or sister-in-law).

The confusion lies with your siblings-in-law's siblings. [[Randall]] says they may be "also siblings-in-law, I think?" and further relations are also "possible ''additional'' siblings-in-law". According to Wikipedia, "sibling-in-law is one's spouse's sibling, or one's sibling's spouse, or one's spouse's sibling's spouse"; therefore Randall is correct with the "also siblings-in-law" on the right (his 'spouse's sibling's spouse') but is incorrect regarding the one on the left (his 'sibling's spouse's sibling' would not generally be considering a sibling-in-law). Many families use the term "out-law" to jokingly refer to the distant sibling+spouses which Randall seems uncertain about.

The caption compares "sibling-in-law" to "<X>th cousin <Y> times removed". This family relationship, for example, {{w|Cousin#Basic_definitions|1st cousin once removed}}, is used to describe your 1st cousin's son or daughter or the first cousin of your father or mother. The "once removed" indicates that the family relative is one generation above or below yours.

The title text describes a scenario in a traditional wedding in most English-speaking regions. Prior to the wedding being completed the officiant will ask whether anyone in the audience has any reason to object to the wedding. In real life this is to allow, for example, someone to aver that one of the participants was already married to someone else, or present evidence (of infidelity? a shameful secret?) that might change one of the participant's mind about their continued commitment to their spouse-to-be. In movies and fiction this is usually a dramatic moment used for the climax of a critical scene. Regardless it is an incredibly serious objection to raise, and should not be done so lightly. The title text however describes a confusing and mundane scenario where the only reason the speaker is objecting to the wedding is because they're unsure whether the marriage would make one of the participants their brother-in-law and thus wouldn't know what to call the groom after the wedding. In order to avoid their own confusion, they attempted to stop the wedding altogether. The officiator rightly ruled that this objection was improper and no reason the couple should be prevented from their own chance at wedded bliss.

Since the title text begins with a FYI (for your information) it is implied that Randall has actually tried to stop a wedding using that reason and has been overruled, and thus he wishes to help others avoid that socially awkward experience.

==Transcript==
:[A single layer of a family tree with 15 people depicted as sticky figures side by side is shown. They are connected alternated either by a bracket on top or a short line between them. The four outermost figures on each side are faded out in gray.]
:[In the middle is Cueball and from below an arrow points at him:]
:Me
:[To the left Ponytail is connected by a bracket and the arrow below says:]
:Sibling
:[To the right of Cueball Megan is shown connected by a small line, an arrow below her reads:]
:Spouse
:[Further to the left and the right the next figures have an arrow below with the nested text:]
:Siblings-in-law
:[The next connected figures on both sides are drawn with two other wider arrows embedding this statement:]
:Also siblings-in-law, I think?
:[All remaining figures left and right have similar arrows below and the text is:]
:Possible ''additional'' siblings-in-law???

:[Caption below the frame:]
:People complain that “<X><sup>th</sup> cousin <Y> times removed” is hard to understand, but to me the most confusing one is sibling-in-law, because it chains across both sibling and marriage links and I don't really know where it stops.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Blondie]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Language]]

explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2040: Sibling-in-Law