Kinship terms

A forum for translations, translation challenges etc. Good place to increase your conlang's vocabulary.
User avatar
k1234567890y
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2353
Joined: 04 Jan 2014 04:47
Contact:

Re: Kinship terms

Post by k1234567890y »

masako wrote:
k1234567890y wrote::con: Lonmai Luna

Lonmai Luna has a very simple kinship system:

- kolcel / celo - a parent or any relative belonging to the same generation of the parent(s) of the speaker.
- alcel / yalcel - a sibling or any relative belonging to the same generation of the speaker themself
- ilacel - an offspring or any relative belonging to the same generation of the the offspring(s) of the speaker.
No grandparents or grandchildren?
ah, nice suggestion of the lexical gaps, maybe I should create terms for them too...
I prefer to not be referred to with masculine pronouns and nouns such as “he/him/his”.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 5797
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Kinship terms

Post by eldin raigmore »

(To motivate this post, you may want to read https://cbbforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2 ... 35#p307235, too.)
Adpihi and Reptigan have classificatory kinterm systems, for the most part; more specifically they have systems of the subtype commonly associated with prescriptive marriage systems.
Usually the subtype of classificatory kinterm systems I’m talking about are distinguished by having FB=F and MZ=M; that is, usually people speaking these languages call Father’s Brothers (FB) by the same term they call Fathers, and call Mother’s Sisters (MZ) by the same term they call Mothers.
Spoiler:
In fact they also call every male relative’s brother by the same term they call that relative, and call every female relative’s sister by the same term they call that relative.
So they call a husband’s brother “brother” HB=H and call a wife’s sister “wife” WZ=W.
But also, father’s wife is mother FW=M and mother’s husband is father MH=F,
and spouse’s child is child HS=S WS=S HD=D WD=D
and parent’s child is sibling FS=B MS=B FD=Z MD=Z;
so brother and half-brother and step-brother are all just “brother”,
and sister and half-sister and step-sister are all just “sister”.

But also, parallel-cousins count as siblings.
My father’s brother is my father, so my father’s brother’s son is my father’s son is my brother, and my father’s brother’s daughter is my father’s daughter is my sister;
And likewise my MZ is my M, so my MZS is my MS is my brother and my MZD is my mother’s daughter is my sister.

....

However I have identified an occasional, circumstantial, need, for their languages to be able to identify “actual” mother or fathers as opposed to classificatory mothers or fathers; and “actual” half-brothers and half-sisters as opposed to classificatory half-siblings; and parallel cousins as opposed to brothers and sisters; and so on.

These are needed only when talking about what to name your kids, or who to invite to be godparents at the naming ceremony, or who not to marry.


From here on in this post all the kinships will be “actual” rather than classificatory.

Certain second-cousins and parallel-cousins and half-siblings, shouldn’t marry certain parallel-cousins and half siblings.
Edit: I can summarize it thusly.
Two men who share an actual greatgrandfather or an actual granduncle need to be cautious about marrying two women who share an actual grandfather or an actual uncle.
And two women who share an actual greatgrandmother or an actual grandaunt need to be cautious about marrying two men who share an actual grandmother or an actual aunt.
If such a pair of married couples is formed, they need to be careful about duplicating the entire individual names of their offspring.
Edit:
Spoiler:
The two most worrisome(?) combinations would probably be:
Two men with the same FFF marry two women with the same FF
Two women with the same MMM marry two men with the same MM
They’d be obliged to give their firstborn sons in the first case, or firstborn daughters in the second case, entirely identical individual names. Although if the husbands were not actual halfbrothers and the wives were not actual halfsisters, perhaps the offspring wouldn’t have all three clan-names in common?

The next two would probably be:
Two men with the same MFF marry two women with the same MF
Two women with the same FMM marry two men with the same FM
But for all I know they could figure out a way around the problems that poses, without too much violence to their traditions. I’ll have to think about it.
Spoiler:
Two men with the same actual FFF shouldn’t marry two women with the same actual FF
Two men with the same MFF shouldn’t marry two women with the same MF
Two men with the same FMF shouldn’t marry two women with the same FM
Two men with the same MMF shouldn’t marry two women with the same MM

And

Two women with the same MMM shouldn’t marry two men with the same MM
Two women with the same FMM shouldn’t marry two men with the same FM
Two women with the same MFM shouldn’t marry two men with the same MF
Two women with the same FFM shouldn’t marry two men with the same FF

So under certain conditions certain actual second-cousins (or half-second-parallel-cousins, maybe?) of a given sex, shouldn’t marry two parallel-cousins of the other sex.

But also;
Two men with the same FF or FM shouldn’t marry two women with the same Father;
Two men with the same MF or MM shouldn’t marry two women with the same Mother;
And likewise two women who are parallel-half-cousins because their fathers were actual half-brothers, shouldn’t marry two men who are agnate half-brothers; and two women who are actual parallel-cousins because their mother’s were half-sisters, shouldn’t marry two men who are actual enate (ie uterine) half-brothers.
...

I hope I didn’t screw up any of that by trying to simplify it in my head as I was typing it.

....

If so I’ll correct and/or simplify and/or condense it later!
I hope!
Post Reply