I think you'll find that missing out the "in law" is always permissible, but sometimes (ie. son-in-law) it's usual to include it, and sometimes(ie. nephew) it's not.
I would guess that the -in-law appellation is to emphasise the difference between ties by marriage and ties by blood, for areas where bloodlines become important. That's juat a hypothesis I've pulled out of my arse, though, and it's likely there's another explanation
( ... )
Yeah, "-in-law" normally indicates a tie by marriage rather than blood, but it seems to be inconsistent, e.g. if one parent remarries then you get a step-parent rather than a parent-in-law.
"Removed" normally applies to cousins: the idea is that I can have them on both sides, i.e. my mother's siblings' children and my father's siblings' children. If I pick one cousin from each side, they will then be "once removed" from each other. As for the first/second cousin thing, that seems to be to do with lines of descent, e.g. my cousin's children, but I'm a bit hazy on the details there.
Comments 3
Reply
Reply
"Removed" normally applies to cousins: the idea is that I can have them on both sides, i.e. my mother's siblings' children and my father's siblings' children. If I pick one cousin from each side, they will then be "once removed" from each other. As for the first/second cousin thing, that seems to be to do with lines of descent, e.g. my cousin's children, but I'm a bit hazy on the details there.
Reply
Leave a comment