Editing Talk:2040: Sibling-in-Law

<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.-->
Unless you want to go completely nuts on this topic, avoid reading Jane Austen, where the the term "X-in-law" is used to mean, roughly, "someone to whom you are related for legal reasons".  It can be used to refer to, for example, what we today might refer to as step/half-siblings, adopted siblings, etc. [[User:Arcanechili|Arcanechili]] ([[User talk:Arcanechili|talk]]) 15:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

> The title text refers to incestual relationships, which are generally frowned upon in Western culture.
How on earth this refers to incest if persons are only legally, not genetically related??? It's just that Randall doesn't know how to call new relatives but cannot stop their arrival. {{unsigned ip|162.158.91.251}}

Yes, I also don't think it refers to incest. {{unsigned ip|172.68.94.40}}

:I'm not sure if that is right or not, but that was my interpretation of that text, based on the "a reason why these two should not be wed." Unless there is a different issue with this, also involving marriage? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.59.190|162.158.59.190]] 16:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

::I read the title text as... the reason he is objecting has nothing to do with the couple getting married, it's simply the selfish reason that Randall doesn't want the confusion of having to figure out what to call the new extended-family members. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 17:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
::Note that he states this reason ISN'T acceptable, in other words nobody else finds it's sufficient reason to stop the marriage. If there was some incest aspect, anybody would accept it as a reason. The objection as stated is simply out of (in)convenience to Cueball/Randall. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 12:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Somehow I don't have this problem whatsoever...as I'm a single child who married a single child. I have zero siblings-in-law. In fact, my future kids won't even have (regular) cousins... {{unsigned ip|162.158.74.231}}

Am I the only one that thinks there's an error in this comic?  Shouldn't spouse's sibling be the sibling-in-law of Cueball's *sibling*?  But then, maybe I'm also making Randall's point...  [[User:Sspenser|Sspenser]] ([[User talk:Sspenser|talk]]) 18:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

^ Sspenser I honestly think this is a poorly constructed diagram because it invites this type of confusion -- I was also tripped up at first, but I think all relationships are meant to be labeled *with respect to "Me"/cueball*.  My initial assumption was that each double-headed arrow was intending to label *pairs* of siblings-in-law; in fact I think it is trying to label individuals who are each independently siblings-in-law of cueball's (or assumed siblings-in-law of cueball's).  The different double-headed arrows represent different levels of confidence in claiming this relationship between Cueball and the individuals in that "layer."  I think it would have been more clear if he kept the arrows basically the same, but labeled as "*My* Siblings-in-law"/"Also *My* Siblings-in-law, I think?"/etc. ~clukes [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.238|162.158.63.238]] 00:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
:'''''I''''' was initially confused by the black border surrounding the image, which connects the heredity lines of ''all'' the people in the chart as if they shared a parent by different matings. This image really ought not to have a border the same color as the chart lines... [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 01:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The Russian language actually has different words for both "types" of brothers in-law (spouse's brother vs. sister's husband), also for parents and children in-law on either side: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Свойство_(родство) .
But all these in-law distinctions are based on the respective spouse's sex, so it won't work for same-sex marriages. {{unsigned ip|162.158.234.58}}

:In German, they even have a word for "spouse of sibling in-law" and similar situations: "Schwippschwager" https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwippschwager [[User:Polyfier|Polyfier]] ([[User talk:Polyfier|talk]]) 23:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The way this is defined, you and your spouse both have the same set of siblings and siblings-in-law. In other words, if someone is your spouse's sibling or sibling in law then that person is your sibling in law if that person is not your sibling. The relationship chains across a maximum of one sibling relationship. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|talk]]) 18:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Off topic but I can't resist:
:DARK HELMET: I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former room-mate.
:LONE STARR: What's that make us?
:DARK HELMET: Absolutely nothing....
Spaceballs (1987) parody Star Wars --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
:Thank you for writing it out, I keep meaning to check what he says, to track the relationship, but whenever I'm watching I'm too busy enjoying the movie, LOL! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 12:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC) 
::Check for example this: [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Spaceballs#Dialogue Spaceballs Dialogue]. And Mel Brooks really thinks about a sequel after thirty years: ''Spaceballs 2: The Search for More Money''. Which will bring more "Moichandising! Moichandising! Where the ''real'' money from the movie is made." --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 15:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Anyone else think this comic is a form of "Wedding Gift" Randal is giving to a sibling who's getting married (presumably today)? {{unsigned|JamesCurran}}

People actually complain cousins removed is hard to understand? When I first learned about it, my thought was actually: Wow, that is so much clearer than what we use in Dutch. In Dutch we use a prefix for each step its is removed so it can get wordy. A cousin would be "neef" a cousin once removed would be "achterneef" a 2nd cousin "achterachterneef". I think a 2nd cousin removed would then be "achterachterachterneef" and third cousins "achterachterachterachterneef". I'm not even sure that's how confusing it is. The English system is easy. Simply count up to the common ancestor (A), then down to the relative (R). Then you're (R-2)th cousins (A-R) times removed. Fun fact, your siblings are your zeroth cousins and you are your own negative first cousin. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 22:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
:That is awesome & I'm totally using it from now on; except I'm going to call anyone 2nd cousin or beyond "altachterneef" & see how long it takes for a Dutch-speaker to give me a quizzical look. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 01:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
:'''''I''''' find what's weird about Dutch is that "nephew" and "male cousin" are the same word (and the same with females). I'm pretty sure that's why my mother sometimes mixes up whether to use "cousin" or "nephew" in English. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 12:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Sooo... Maybe you can help me with this: 
My half-sister from my Mother's first marriage has 3 half-sisters from her Father's second marriage. My half-sister adopted her youngest half-sister, becoming her legal guardian or "parent". So is that person my niece? Half-sister? Half-sister in-law? Sister? Half-sister's half-sister? Half-sister's daughter in-law? Niece in-law once removed? None? [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 01:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
:She's your adopted half-niece. She had no named relationship to you prior to adoption.  [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] ([[User talk:LtPowers|talk]]) 12:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
::That sounds about right! We all refer to each other as brother & sisters though. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I've never heard of a spouse's sibling's spouse being called your sibling-in-law before. That usage seems weird to me.  But then, none of my siblings or siblings-in-law are married. [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] ([[User talk:LtPowers|talk]]) 12:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

;Ray Steven's song
If he thinks that's confusing, he should follow Ray Steven's ''I'm My Own Grandpa'' song. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.76|172.68.150.76]] 14:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
::Actually by Oscar and Lonzo.  Ray Stevens just covered it. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 14:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
:When I was growing up, I did know some kids where the younger one was claimed as the other's uncle... [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
:: It is pretty common in large families where the aunt/uncle is younger than the nephew/niece. A person (P1) gets married at 18 and has a child (C1) the next year who also gets married at 18 and has a child (C2) the next year. P1 is only 40 years old and now has a child (C3). C3 is the aunt/uncle of C2 even though C2 is older. C1 and C3 are siblings 22 years apart. Definitely happens.
:I sing that at karaoke sometimes, I think I was introduced to it from The Muppet Show. What bugs me about that song is that the title is explained in the first few lines, the rest is just other weird stuff about the whole relationship. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 12:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

;Zaphod Beeblebrox character
Zaphod is described as a "semi-half-cousin" of Ford Prefect, with whom he "shares three of the same mothers". Because of "an accident with a contraceptive and a time machine", his direct ancestors from his father are also his direct descendants. He has referred to himself as Zaphod Beeblebrox the First, but is called Zaphod Beeblebrox the Nothingth by his great-grandfather.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Accidentally deleted yesterday, sorry for that: --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 16:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
:The Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries both give a simple list of people who can be considered a sibling-in-law. Your sibling's spouse, your spouse's sibling, and your spouse's sibling's spouse. It does not include your sibling's spouse's siblings. So the questionable "sibling-in-law" on the left is not a sibling-in-law, while the one on the right is. Why does two marriage and a sibling relationship count for more than two sibling and a marriage relationship? Because married people generally spend a lot of adult time together, while siblings gradually drift apart. A cause to gather siblings can easily sweep multiple spouses into the gathering, while a cause to gather one side of the family only rarely gathers the other side. These differences become more pronounced in with large numbers of siblings.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.12|162.158.186.12]]

I'm just noting, I looked at Wikipedia, and the best I can find as a solution to it, starting at "Also siblings-in-law, I think?" are "First Cousins-in-law", and the numbers increase as they radiate out. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.89|172.68.58.89]] 07:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Um, the description of the title text seems to have a lot of supposition in it. All it really says is that the reason isn't good enough - not that anyone actually tried it, was shot down etc, or even that it refers to banns. My reading of it before I came here was actually similar to the incest train of thought, where not having that relationship clarified could cause issues down the road in regards to inheritance, future marriages etc. 
Also, 'traditional wedding in most English-speaking regions' isn't entirely accurate - banns are generally a Christian thing, sure, but Christianity extends to non-English-speaking areas as well and has done for quite some time, and a requirement for notice and swearing that no legal impediments to the marriage exist are now part of many secular, legal processes for marriage (e.g. part of the process of obtaining a licence, or via registration of intent). I'd recommend this be changed to something a little less interpretative. e.g:
"The title text states that not knowing whether a marriage would create an in-law relationship between one of the parties and a third person doesn't constitute an objection to a marriage significant enough to stop it from happening. The phrase "reason why these two should not be wed" comes from the historical practice of announcing a marriage in advance so that people could raise any objections - such as one of the parties already being married - prior to the wedding. This process is now often handled by notice requirements or a signed declaration by the parties that no impediment exists." {{unsigned ip|172.68.254.247}}
: I don't know if the objection part of the wedding ceremony exists only in christian rites -I doubt it-, but in christianity it's quite specific to the anglican rite (never heard of it anywhere else) so I would say that "English-speaking" is quite accurate here.
:In-law are awefully (intended) simple : exactly one marital and one blood link. I fail to understand how anyone could possibly be confused by that. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.87|141.101.69.87]] 13:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
:Sorry, the title text IS essentially saying that Randall / Cueball tried this objection, that trying it is how he found out the reason is unacceptable. It's not really interpretive, it's implied so strongly it's just about declared outright. It's a standard method of comedy in the English language, painting a humourous scene by describing the result. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 12:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I always  use the term "out-laws" for a connection that would be defined by multiple in-law relationships. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.60|162.158.186.60]] 12:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)