Is there a name for the relationship between me and my aunt's nephews in Pasadena? There's no consanguinity, and I didn't previously know of their existence.
Unkie lived a long and happy life, healthy until near the end, and died relatively quickly. It is sad, though, and I don't know what my aunt will do now.
>Is there a name for the relationship between me and my aunt's nephews >in Pasadena? There's no consanguinity, and I didn't previously know >of their existence.
The technical term for a relative by marriage is "affine".
-- Michael Palmer Claremont, California mpal...@panix.com
> Is there a name for the relationship between me and my aunt's nephews > in Pasadena? There's no consanguinity, and I didn't previously know > of their existence.
> Unkie lived a long and happy life, healthy until near the end, and > died relatively quickly. It is sad, though, and I don't know what my > aunt will do now.
In my case, we just call each other "Cousins".
-- Willyboy |"I know of no more encouraging fact | than the unquestionable ability of willyboy at one dot net | man to elevate his life by a conscious | endeavor" -H. D. Thoreau ------------------------------------------------------------------- Willy is a charter member of the Peter Pan Club. Ask him about it.
> Is there a name for the relationship between me and my aunt's nephews > in Pasadena? There's no consanguinity, and I didn't previously know > of their existence.
in the words of Granny Clampett, "You'se kinfolk!"
> Unkie lived a long and happy life, healthy until near the end, and > died relatively quickly. It is sad, though, and I don't know what my > aunt will do now.
>>Is there a name for the relationship between me and my aunt's nephews >>in Pasadena? There's no consanguinity, and I didn't previously know >>of their existence.
>The technical term for a relative by marriage is "affine".
Thank you.
I'm pretty sure there's no special term in English for his son's friend, though there might be in Hawaiian, nor for their dog.
> Is there a name for the relationship between me and my aunt's nephews > in Pasadena? There's no consanguinity, and I didn't previously know > of their existence.
> Unkie lived a long and happy life, healthy until near the end, and > died relatively quickly. It is sad, though, and I don't know what my > aunt will do now.
> > Is there a name for the relationship between me and my aunt's nephews > > in Pasadena? There's no consanguinity, and I didn't previously know > > of their existence.
> > Unkie lived a long and happy life, healthy until near the end, and > > died relatively quickly. It is sad, though, and I don't know what my > > aunt will do now.
> > > Is there a name for the relationship between me and my aunt's nephews > > > in Pasadena? There's no consanguinity, and I didn't previously know > > > of their existence.
> > > Unkie lived a long and happy life, healthy until near the end, and > > > died relatively quickly. It is sad, though, and I don't know what my > > > aunt will do now.
> TrekBear:
> > You're likely 1st or 2nd cousins to each other.
> ...uh... "There's no consanguinity"
Even adopted family members are considered relatives as are those who join a family by marriage - in-laws, you know. My younger brother is adopted, and I don't consider him any less a part of my family!
TrekBear <jwa1...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Jun 10, 3:03?pm, rjwi...@gmail.com wrote: >> Jack Hamilton:
>> > > Is there a name for the relationship between me and my aunt's nephews >> > > in Pasadena? ?There's no consanguinity, and I didn't previously know >> > > of their existence. ?
>> > > Unkie lived a long and happy life, healthy until near the end, and >> > > died relatively quickly. ?It is sad, though, and I don't know what my >> > > aunt will do now.
>> TrekBear:
>> > You're likely 1st or 2nd cousins to each other.
>> ...uh... "There's no consanguinity"
>Even adopted family members are considered relatives as are those who >join a family by marriage
This may be your family's practice - it is by no means a universal or even widespread practice. The question was about a commonly used word to mean this particular relationship, not about your family's idiosyncratic uses. My guess is there are languages that map this relationship: to my knowledge English is not one of them. -- -- Ellen Evans If my life wasn't funny, it would j...@panix.com just be true, and that's unacceptable. Carrie Fisher
I generally refer to people in this relationship to me as "my cousins' cousins." At least, that's what I assume is meant. What I'm referring to are the children of A, the sibling of B, and B is married to C, and C is the sibling of my parent.
I'm actually close to those related to me through my mother's family. I know some on the other side, but not particularly well.
(I guarantee that the attribution chain here is messed up. I came late to this party.)
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:56:13 +0000 (UTC), j...@panix.com (Ellen Evans) wrote:
>In article <e5e2c1ff-a21f-4380-b576-e6556503d...@h28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, >TrekBear <jwa1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>On Jun 10, 3:03?pm, rjwi...@gmail.com wrote: >>> Jack Hamilton:
>>> > > Is there a name for the relationship between me and my aunt's nephews >>> > > in Pasadena? ?There's no consanguinity, and I didn't previously know >>> > > of their existence. ?
j...@panix.com (Ellen Evans), in article <h0prod$48...@reader1.panix.com>, dixit:
>This may be your family's practice - it is by no means a universal or even >widespread practice. The question was about a commonly used word to mean >this particular relationship, not about your family's idiosyncratic uses. >My guess is there are languages that map this relationship: to my >knowledge English is not one of them.
In my version of English, that's a cousin. -- Piglet, pig...@piglet.org "That may be YOUR point. MY point is to live each moment so as to maximize the amount of complaining that can be done about said moment, after the fact. It's not as easy as it looks." --jankplus
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:08:12 +0000 (UTC), pig...@panix.com (Piglet) wrote:
>j...@panix.com (Ellen Evans), in article <h0prod$48...@reader1.panix.com>, dixit: >>This may be your family's practice - it is by no means a universal or even >>widespread practice. The question was about a commonly used word to mean >>this particular relationship, not about your family's idiosyncratic uses. >>My guess is there are languages that map this relationship: to my >>knowledge English is not one of them.
>In my version of English, that's a cousin.
In my version, they are not, unless with some kind of qualifier (we're all cousins eventually, in theory).
> >This may be your family's practice - it is by no means a universal or even > >widespread practice. The question was about a commonly used word to mean > >this particular relationship, not about your family's idiosyncratic uses. > >My guess is there are languages that map this relationship: to my > >knowledge English is not one of them.
Piglet:
> In my version of English, that's a cousin.
I'll accept a “cousin,“ in a loose sense, just not a “first cousin“ or a “second cousin,“ both of which are specific, consanguinous relationships, viz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin
Rod Williams wrote: > Piglet: >> Ellen: >>> This may be your family's practice - it is by no means a >>> universal or even widespread practice. The question was about a >>> commonly used word to mean this particular relationship, not >>> about your family's idiosyncratic uses. My guess is there are >>> languages that map this relationship: to my knowledge English is >>> not one of them.
>> In my version of English, that's a cousin.
> I'll accept a cousin, in a loose sense, just not a first cousin > or a second cousin, both of which are specific, consanguinous > relationships, viz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin
We use "cousin" with full knowledge there's no formal blood relation. It's just a way of acknowledging we're family in an extended sense of the word.
-- Willyboy |"I know of no more encouraging fact | than the unquestionable ability of willyboy at one dot net | man to elevate his life by a conscious | endeavor" -H. D. Thoreau ------------------------------------------------------------------- Willy is a charter member of the Peter Pan Club. Ask him about it.
Rod Williams <rjwi...@gmail.com>, in article <0bff7ed4-2bf9-4c52-af2e-7f465781e...@i28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, dixit:
>Ellen: >> >This may be your family's practice - it is by no means a universal or even >> >widespread practice. The question was about a commonly used word to mean >> >this particular relationship, not about your family's idiosyncratic uses. >> >My guess is there are languages that map this relationship: to my >> >knowledge English is not one of them. >Piglet: >> In my version of English, that's a cousin. >I'll accept a cousin, in a loose sense, just not a first >cousin or a second cousin, both of which are specific, >consanguinous relationships, viz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin
Well of course they're not a first or second or third cousin! I'd have said so. Ditto first cousin once removed and the like.
If you wanted to be clearer, you could say 'kissing cousin'. Explicitly *not* consanguinous. -- Piglet, pig...@piglet.org "That may be YOUR point. MY point is to live each moment so as to maximize the amount of complaining that can be done about said moment, after the fact. It's not as easy as it looks." --jankplus
pig...@panix.com (Piglet), in article <h0u4o2$ht...@reader1.panix.com>, dixit:
>If you wanted to be clearer, you could say 'kissing cousin'. >Explicitly *not* consanguinous.
P.S. I am *shocked* by the freedictionary definition of 'kissing cousin'. That is *not* what it means in my lexicon.
In my lexicon, a kissing cousin is one you're allowed to have sex with. (Or, rather, marry, which is more to the point.) Distant enough to not actually be related. -- Piglet, pig...@piglet.org "That may be YOUR point. MY point is to live each moment so as to maximize the amount of complaining that can be done about said moment, after the fact. It's not as easy as it looks." --jankplus
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:56:24 +0000 (UTC), pig...@panix.com (Piglet) wrote:
>pig...@panix.com (Piglet), in article <h0u4o2$ht...@reader1.panix.com>, dixit: >>If you wanted to be clearer, you could say 'kissing cousin'. >>Explicitly *not* consanguinous.
>P.S. I am *shocked* by the freedictionary definition of 'kissing >cousin'. That is *not* what it means in my lexicon.
>In my lexicon, a kissing cousin is one you're allowed to have sex >with. (Or, rather, marry, which is more to the point.) Distant >enough to not actually be related.
That's my understanding as well. The Free Dictionary says:
1. A distant relative known well enough to be kissed when greeted. 2. One of two or more things that are closely akin.
A few other online dictionaries agree with the free dictionary. These sites do not:
> TrekBear <jwa1...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Jun 10, 3:03?pm, rjwi...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Jack Hamilton:
> >> > > Is there a name for the relationship between me and my aunt's nephews > >> > > in Pasadena? ?There's no consanguinity, and I didn't previously know > >> > > of their existence. ?.
> >> > You're likely 1st or 2nd cousins to each other.
> >> ...uh... "There's no consanguinity"
> >Even adopted family members are considered relatives as are those who > >join a family by marriage
> This may be your family's practice - it is by no means a universal or even > widespread practice. The question was about a commonly used word to mean > this particular relationship, not about your family's idiosyncratic uses. > My guess is there are languages that map this relationship: to my > knowledge English is not one of them.
Cousin covers a lot of territory, and most people would be fine using it here, I think. Few will care about the level of cousinship.
On Jun 12, 10:56 am, pig...@panix.com (Piglet) wrote:
> P.S. I am *shocked* by the freedictionary definition of 'kissing > cousin'. That is *not* what it means in my lexicon.
> In my lexicon, a kissing cousin is one you're allowed to have sex > with. (Or, rather, marry, which is more to the point.) Distant > enough to not actually be related.
On Jun 11, 8:09 pm, Jack Hamilton <j...@acm.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:08:12 +0000 (UTC), pig...@panix.com (Piglet) > wrote:
> >In my version of English, that's a cousin.
> In my version, they are not, unless with some kind of qualifier (we're > all cousins eventually, in theory).
I think Miss Manners would say that if you want them to be your cousins, then they are. If you don't feel like they're your cousins, then you may be stuck with an explanatory phrase, "my aunt's nephews" which you used here.
Unless you posit extraterrestrial intervention, I think it's safe to say we are in fact all cousins eventually. The relationship is not all that distant, actually, when you think about it.
