|
Post by Barry on May 30, 2008 14:54:58 GMT
Hmmm ...
I've just realised that the hyphenation there suggests a bunch of drained corpses! It probably should have been non-blood-relatives. Maybe a case for amanda's 'diffreent priorities of hyphens' graphics.
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on May 30, 2008 15:24:24 GMT
I agree with you, rick, that the semicolons need to be in there - even the one before the final set of animals. But that's because we have there an unusually complex sentence, and indeed we'd SAY it with an unusual separation at that point. That doesn't mean we ALWAYS have to have the point in there before the final item. For example, I'd be quite happy with the final semicolon, but without the final comma before "bears":
At the zoo, there were three areas in the process of renovation: lions, tigers and bears; birds and bees; and snakes and mongooses.
If you feel there is some grammatical or semantic reason for which it needs to be there before "bear", why does a comma not then need to be there before "bees" and "mongooses"?
|
|
|
Post by Pete on May 30, 2008 16:06:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Pete on May 30, 2008 16:10:02 GMT
Sheesh! Diagrams, yet - I'm impressed. And, yes, I agree with the final ruling about generational (removed) differences. I've often wondered, however, how it works with non-blood relatives, and if there's a difference. A friend of mine (weirdly, we met socially in our 20s, and realised we were distantly related) is my uncle's nephew. My uncle is my uncle by virtue of being married to my aunt (my mother's sister). So, my friend's mother is the sister of the man married to my mother's sister; how are we related? I would say that you are not related to this person. Certainly. as you point out, not in any sense of consanguinity (in short, he's not your bloody relation) . If you need to describe him, then he is your uncle-by-marriage's nephew. ;D Then be prepared to spend a few minutes explaining that to your interlocutor.
|
|
|
Post by Tone on May 30, 2008 20:48:11 GMT
Pete's said, it. Right on! But I was intending to post (and do so, anyway): >My uncle is my uncle by virtue of being married to my aunt (my mother's sister).<But he's not really your uncle, is he? He's a sort of quasi-uncle (or para-uncle). Perhaps he should be your "uncle". I recall my puzzling about this many a year ago about my various para-uncles and para-aunts -- but now I only have dead aunts and dead uncles. (So "Time solves all problems". : >It probably should have been non-blood-relatives.<Yes indeed. Tone
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel-Ernest on May 31, 2008 13:51:34 GMT
Barry, . . . how are we related? To keep things simple I would plump for “distantly”.
A friend of mine . . . is my uncle's nephew. But you are also your uncle’s nephew. Are we dealing here with a rather extreme form of split-personality? ;D However, as the ‘relationship’ is through a marriage (which is not your own), wouldn’t you be cousins once removed?
And talking of keeping things simple; I have a friend who is an only child of only children. She rejoices in how wonderfully uncluttered her calendar is!
Tone, But he's not really your uncle, is he? Well of course he is. What makes you say otherwise? A man married to my aunt is my uncle; and a woman married to my uncle is my aunt. Admittedly they have those titles through marriage but the only other alternative would be to call them step-uncle and step-aunt. And if your aunt or uncle divorced and re-married you would end up with either a step-step-aunt or step-step-uncle.
G-E.
|
|
|
Post by Barry on May 31, 2008 16:52:23 GMT
Yes, I'd agree. These things usually come in pairs. I know in my uncle's case, it's an honorary title,but it's the correct one, nonetheless (I don't talk about 'my aunt and Peter', but 'my aunt and uncle'). G-E, Yes, I'm his nephew too, but I wanted to keep the explanation neutral before asking the question, if you see what I mean. I suppose I could simply refer to him (my friend) as 'my cousin', in that general sense of cousinity (is that a word?) - used more in America, to describe any member of a large family that isn't a direct blood-relative. I have quite an uncluttered diary, as my parents each had only one sibling, and only my father's sister produced offspring (both of them considerably older than me; indeed, one is now, alas, no longer with us). One day I'm going to be quite wealthy ...
|
|
|
Post by Tone on May 31, 2008 20:33:46 GMT
>She rejoices in how wonderfully uncluttered her calendar is!<
And lonely?
I've always thought that if you have a large "family" you can always choose to ignore them, but if you have them not then you have no choice!
Tone
|
|
|
Post by Dave on May 31, 2008 21:59:16 GMT
I suppose I could simply refer to him (my friend) as 'my cousin', in that general sense of cousinity (is that a word?) - used more in America, to describe any member of a large family that isn't a direct blood-relative. Only four hits--no definitions. Maybe somewhere, but not that I've heard used much. I thought Shakespeare used cousin as "friend" in some of his plays. In our family (Swedish heritage), we use a term that sounds like "schleck to schleck" (maybe Sue or TfS can help with the spelling!) meaning "relative of a relative," something we might call "shirttail relative" in English.
|
|
|
Post by TfS on Jun 1, 2008 8:02:17 GMT
In our family (Swedish heritage), we use a term that sounds like "schleck to schleck" (maybe Sue or TfS can help with the spelling!) meaning "relative of a relative," something we might call "shirttail relative" in English. Dave, It's "släkt" meaning "family, relatives, related to". Pronounced "slekt". Är du släkt med A? Are you related to A?Inom min släkt. Within my family.TfS
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jun 1, 2008 8:07:33 GMT
Thanks, TfS.
|
|
|
Post by Sue M-V on Jun 1, 2008 10:37:30 GMT
In our family (Swedish heritage), we use a term that sounds like "schleck to schleck" (maybe Sue or TfS can help with the spelling!) meaning "relative of a relative," something we might call "shirttail relative" in English. Just to elaborate a bit on what TfS says here, you must be careful topronounce släkt as "slekt", because slakt means "slaughter"! The difference a couple of little dots can make! In Swedish there is a complicated system of identifying relatives - the equivalent of talking about a second cousin, twice removed and suchlike. They talk about a tremänning, for instance, and some people have an amazing awareness of all these remote relatives. I've never heard shirttail relative before! Is that an American expression, or is it also common in British English? What do Australians say? Sue
|
|
|
Post by TfS on Jun 1, 2008 11:23:06 GMT
Dave, To go back to the Swedish term, that will be "släkt till släkt" and would translate to "from generation to generation" as is used, for example, when referring to family stories or histories passed down the ages. No doubt very much used within families with an emigrant history. As with Sue M-V, I have never heard the phrase "shirttail relative". Quinion has this to say about it. TfS
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 1, 2008 12:59:01 GMT
I've never heard shirttail relative before! Is that an American expression, or is it also common in British English? What do Australians say? Sue I've never heard it in the UK.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 1, 2008 13:00:12 GMT
And my aunts tend not to wear shirts with tails for uncles-by-marriage to hang on to.
|
|