fox: linguistics-related IPA (linguistics)
fox ([personal profile] fox) wrote2004-07-28 08:21 pm

machetunim

It is a well-known fact that every language lacks some expressions for which other languages have perfect words. My father's favorite example is gemütlich, a German word that I understand (not being a native speaker) to mean something like 'comfortable' and something like 'comforting', but not either of those things and not precisely both of them together. (See what I mean?)

One of mine is macheteyneste, a Yiddish word that according to Leo Rosten means:
  • mother-in-law
  • future mother-in-law
  • son or daughter's future mother-in-law
  • son or daughter's mother-in-law (he says this is the most exact meaning)

  • What an excellent relationship to have a special word for. The macheteyneste is (or normally at least once was) married to the machuten, and they and their family are one's machetunim. We have "in-laws", sure; but while my brother's wife's family are not my in-laws, they are (I believe) my machetunim.

    I propose adding an extra "-in-law" to people one more step removed from relationship by blood. So:

    me -> my brother => his wife; my sister-in-law -> her sister; his sister-in-law; my sister-in-law-in-law

    For convenience, however, I suggest that people married to siblings use only one layer of "in-law" when referring to each other:

    my brother => his wife -> her sister; his sister-in-law => the sister's husband; my brother's [wife's] brother-in-law

    Interestingly, we don't do this at all with relatives beyond the first degree. You call the woman married to your uncle either (a) your aunt or (b) your uncle's wife (depending on how you feel about her, I'd wager) -- I don't know anybody who says "aunt-in-law", not even to describe the sister of her mother-in-law. Ditto grandparents and cousins.

    Anyone who's got a submission for "sister-in-law-in-law", I'd love to hear it.

    [identity profile] gaeta.livejournal.com 2004-07-28 09:38 pm (UTC)(link)
    Well, your brother's wife is one relationship, right? And your husband's sister is another. Yet, the two people-- the sister and the wife -- "share" this asymmetrical relatiohnship. There isn't one relationship to describe this connection; it's two complementary relationships. It's odd, in a way, that the two people involved are called "sister" in the first place. (or, by the same token, "brother"). Of course, we're given "mothers" and "daughters" by the same familial system. That's no less odd.

    I dunno. I haven't taken any drugs, so I probably just need to go to bed.