Editing 2040: Sibling-in-Law
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Explanation== | ==Explanation== | ||
| β | 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" (brother-in-law | + | 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". | 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". | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
Many families also use the term "out-law" to jokingly refer to the distant sibling+spouses which Randall seems uncertain about. | Many families also use the term "out-law" to jokingly refer to the distant sibling+spouses which Randall seems uncertain about. | ||
| β | 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 | + | 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 provide a final opportunity for anyone in the audience to speak a reason to object to the wedding. This intended for reasons why they cannot ''lawfully'' be wed -- such as that one of the participants is already married to someone else or is too young to marry, that the couple are so closely related that the marriage would be incestuous, or that the marriage license is expired -- or other serious emergencies -- such as evidence of infidelity (sexual or otherwise) that might change one of the participants' minds 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. However, the title text 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 neither just cause to object nor a reason that the wedding would be unlawful, and is therefore no reason the couple should be prevented from their own chance at wedded bliss. | The title text describes a scenario in a traditional wedding in most English-speaking regions. Prior to the wedding being completed, the officiant will provide a final opportunity for anyone in the audience to speak a reason to object to the wedding. This intended for reasons why they cannot ''lawfully'' be wed -- such as that one of the participants is already married to someone else or is too young to marry, that the couple are so closely related that the marriage would be incestuous, or that the marriage license is expired -- or other serious emergencies -- such as evidence of infidelity (sexual or otherwise) that might change one of the participants' minds 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. However, the title text 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 neither just cause to object nor a reason that the wedding would be unlawful, and is therefore no reason the couple should be prevented from their own chance at wedded bliss. | ||
