Worldbuilding

[unparsed][b:360179c850][u:360179c850][size=16:360179c850]On Adpihi[/size:360179c850][/u:360179c850][/b:360179c850], if death, divorce, and/or disaster do not intervene, the ideal considered typical is for each person to marry three spouses, one at a time but without dissolving any of the relationships. A person's first marriage is usually to someone, older than themselves, of the opposite sex, who already has at least one child and either is or has been married at least once (and probably only once, if there've been no deaths nor divorces). A person is usually their first spouse's second spouse. Ideally and typically this first marriage produces at least one child. Sometime (I'm thinking 8 to 17 years would be considered typical, but I haven't really figured that out for certain yet) after one's first marriage, by which time one's first child from that marriage can be expected to be no longer an infant or toddler but probably a schoolchild, one typically marries a second spouse, with the permission and approval of one's first spouse. One's second spouse is ideally and usually younger than oneself, and, if not a virgin, ideally has never been married before and has never had offspring before. In other words, one is usually one's second spouse's first spouse. (One reason it may be easy to get one's first spouse's permission to marry a second spouse, might be that one's first spouse wants no more offspring, and so is no longer interested in reproductive sexual intercourse; and further, may be interested in courting and/or marrying his/her third spouse.) (However it may be that one's relationship with one's first spouse is still fertile and productive even after one's relationship with one's second spouse has become productive.) This second marriage, too, is expected to produce at least one offspring. Sometime after one's children from these first two marriages are old enough -- perhaps the second marriage's first offspring is approaching adulthood -- one is expected to find one's third spouse, with the permission and approval of one's first two spouses. One is typically one's third spouse's third spouse. One's third marriage is not expected to produce children. It is considered to be, ideally, more for companionship, and less for reproduction. I expect that same-sex marriage will be casually accepted for third marriages, but not for first or second marriages. In fact it will be entirely the couple's own private matter whether they have sex at all, and/or whether they require sexual fidelity. [u:360179c850][b:360179c850]__________________________________________________[/b:360179c850][/u:360179c850] So now we see why there might be a lot of terms in Adpihi for half-siblings, for spouse-older-than-me vs spouse-younger-than-me, and so on. I want to examine the distinctions individually to see which ones might be important in Adpihi; and to examine them in pairs to see which ones we need one but not both of. And, maybe, to examine them in threes to see if there are any we need one of but not two of, or need two of but not all three of. But I'll have to do it later. It's getting late.

[hide] [size 0.75][i](If [spoiler][/spoiler]s worked on this phpBBoard, I'd put this entire post in such a "spoiler" block.)[/i][/size] I mentioned that I had once intended Adpihi to have a prescriptive marriage system. Its system will still be such that in regions that are less densely and/or less diversely inhabited, marriage will still be prescriptive -- unless someone can find an outsider spouse. I plan that its system, whatever it turns out to be, will be compatible with having once been a P.M.S., or with having evolved from a P.M.S. (here "PMS" stands for [b]P[/b]rescriptive [b]M[/b]arriage [b]S[/b]ystem -- [u][i]not[/i][/u] for Pre-Menstrual Stress syndrome.) The prescriptive marriage system is (or was going to be) a third-cousin marriage system; a man would be supposed to marry his MFMBDSD (his [b]M[/b]other's [b]F[/b]ather's [b]M[/b]other's [b]B[/b]rother's [b]D[/b]aughter's [b]S[/b]on's [b]D[/b]aughter); [u][i]or a woman classed with her[/i][/u]. Equivalently, a woman would be supposed to marry her FMFZSDS ([b]F[/b]ather's [b]M[/b]other's [b]F[/b]ather's ([b]Z[/b])sister's [b]S[/b]on's [b]D[/b]aughter's [b]S[/b]on) -- [u][i]or a relative classified as such[/i][/u]. The "or a relative classified as such (by the Adpihi kinship system)" might be important in part because there might be no-one [b]we[/b] would classify as such a relative. When Adpihi is at a period of stable population or slowed growth, and mortality is low (so that nearly every child born lives to see the birth of as many of their own children as most average people limit themselves to (or are limited to)), most people average about three children. Then the odds are sometimes as follows (or close, asssuming I have not made a mistake): Odds that a Ego has/had a Mother: 100%. Odds that Ego's M had a Father: 100%. Odds that Ego's MF had a Mother; 100%. Odds that Ego's MFM had a Brother; 3 out of 4, or 75%. Conditional probability that Ego's MFMB had a Daughter, given that MFM had a Brother; 7 out of 8, or 87.5%. Conditional probability that Ego's MFMBD had a Son, given that MFMB had a Daughter; 7 out of 8, or 87.5%. Conditional probability that Ego's MFMBDS has a Daughter, given that MFMBD had a Son; 7 out of 8, or 87.5%. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - So, odds that Ego had an MFMB: 3 out of 4, or 75% Odds that Ego had an MFMBD: 21 out of 32, or 65.625% Odds that Ego had an MFMBDS: 147 out of 256, or 57.421875% Odds that Ego has an MFMBDSD: 1029 out of 2048, or 50.244140625%. These odds can be raised at least to 343/512 (66.9921875%) by including enough "classificatory brothers" of Ego's MFM among his MFMBs. His MFM would count her MZS and her FBS among her brothers; that is, Ego could count his MFMFBSs and his MFMMZSs as his MFMBs. That way, and similar ways (such as including MFM's parallel second-cousins as well as her parallel first-cousins)taken to their logical extremes , the odds that Ego's MFM had a "classificatory" Brother could be raised (almost) to 100%, or as close as one would like. In fact the entire class of men [u][i]classed as[/i][/u] Ego's MFMBs could be broad enough that almost surely one of them had a Daughter; if that were true, and the fact were used, the odds that Ego has a MFMBDSD could be raised to 49/64, or 76.5625%. And so on. If the population is not too sparse and mortality isn't too fierce, a male Ego is almost sure to have a female relative [b]Adpihi[/b] would consider his MFMBDSD. Remaining obstacles would be; Is she available to marry? For instance, she may be too old to marry, or too young to marry, or already have bagged her limit of husbands. I don't know how to work out those odds, though. The odds that at least one suitable bride could be found, could probably be kept close to 100%, by means of adoptions, or going on bride-quests, or such things. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - On the other hand, at certain times in Adpihi history and at certain places on Adpihi, people will be making a conscious effort to increase the population, or at least to have several (that is, on the average, six or seven) children. During some such times and in some such places conditions will be such that most of these children will live to adulthood, marry, and have children of their own. Suppose such a time has persisted in such a place for at least four or more generations. Then, unless I've made one or more mistakes; The odds that a woman such as Ego's MFM has at least one brother are probably at least around 31/32. The odds that a man such as Ego's MFMB or his MFMBDS has at least one daughter (assuming he exists) is probably at least around 63/64. The conditional probability that a woman such as Ego's MFMBD has at least one son, assuming she exists, is probably at least around 63/64. Multiplying all that out, the probability that Ego has a MFMBDSD (by [u]our[/u] kinship system) is probably more than a minimum of 92.404568195343%. [/hide]

[unparsed][size=15:8538986b9e][u:8538986b9e][b:8538986b9e]On Adpihi,[/b:8538986b9e][/u:8538986b9e][/size:8538986b9e] people do tend to look for reproductive partners around half-a-generation different in age from themselves. A young person (Ego) would want their first spouse to be younger than one of Ego's parents; but most of them probably prefer their first spouse to be closer to Ego's younger parent's age than to Ego's own age. And a young person marrying for the first time probably would not want to acquire a step-child older than themselves; but most, I expect, wouldn't mind being closer to their oldest stepchild's age than to their first spouse's age. Similarly, a parent (Ego) seeking a second, younger, spouse, might "feel weird" marrying someone younger than one of Ego's children, but actually prefer to court someone closer to Ego's oldest child's age than to Ego's own age. And such a person probably wouldn't want to acquire a parent-in-law younger than themselves; but Ego might be actually pleased if their youngest new parent-in-law was closer to Ego's age than Ego's age was to their new second spouse's age. Certain marriages that are important for political or diplomatic or economic reasons might need to violate some of those preferences. Consider, for example, two kings who have a treaty that they wish to cement by having one of them marry the other's daughter. Suppose they decide the older king should marry the younger king's daughter (maybe because the older king has no unmarried daughters). Then the older king will acquire a father-in-law younger than himself, and may acquire a bride younger than his oldest child. (Maybe the older king has no sons, or their TOs of wives are already full, or for some other reason none of them can marry any of the younger king's daughters.) That still might happen even if each king marries a daughter of the other king. In such a case, maybe the younger king will find that his new bride is closer to his own age than to the age of his oldest child, and she might find that her husband is closer to her own age than to the age of her father. So the Adpihi probably need terms to refer to "my parent-in-law younger than me", "my child-in-law older than me", "my step-parent younger than me", and "my step-child older than me"; but in late Adpihi and/or early Reptigan times, probably these are used only when discussing history, or perhaps in historical romances about noblepeople or wealthy folk with a lot of heritable property. (Or soap-operas about very traditional families.) [b:8538986b9e][u:8538986b9e]__________________________________________________[/u:8538986b9e][/b:8538986b9e] Suppose we're at a time and place in Adpihi's history when the population is deliberately and successfully growing; people average six or seven children apiece and most of them survive to adulthood. It may be that the average woman has seven children, approximately one every five years beginning at age 15 and ending at age 45.[color=blue:8538986b9e]*[/color:8538986b9e] If a woman's first child is a daughter, it's likely, then, that her that daughter is delivering the woman's first grandchild about the time (say, give or take about, say, nine months) the woman herself is delivering her own fourth child. So the first woman's fifth, sixth, and seventh children will be younger than her oldest grandchild. That oldest grandchild will have six aunts-or-uncles, of whom at least two are older than the grandchild, but at least three are younger than the grandchild. If the woman's other children, including her oldest, continue the pattern, her sixth child probably has at least three nieces-or-nephews older than himself/herself; his oldest aunt's two oldest children and his second-oldest aunt/uncle's oldest child. The original woman's seventh and last child probably has six (or more) nieces/nephews older than himself/herself. [color=blue:8538986b9e]*[/color:8538986b9e](I admit this sounds hard on the women. So maybe most women have six babies, one every four years starting at age 20 and ending at age 40? But some might say "maybe an interval of only four years between babies is distressingly short, and that counters the advantage of waiting until 20 to start and quitting at 40 instead of 45". So maybe she just has five babies on average.) (Anyway, judging by real-life history, women who have as many children as possible don't live long enough to marry a third time. When and where that's the fashion, third marriages may be rare; or men who live long enough to contract third marriages may need to marry one another. Or something; maybe more polyandry among older women?) So the situation of an aunt-or-uncle being younger than a niece-or-nephew probably comes up a lot, in certain times and places. Whether or not the Adpihi people need words to distinguish such relatives from otherwise-similar relatives in which the relative ages match the order of the generations, remains to be seen; I'll try to find out. [b:8538986b9e][u:8538986b9e]__________________________________________________[/u:8538986b9e][/b:8538986b9e] On Adpihi, it is thought that some kinds of heritable property should be bequeathed to sons rather than to daughters, because they're more use to men than to women, or men can make better use of them, or manage them better; and some kinds should be bequeathed to daughters rather than to sons, because women need them more or can handle them better or whatever. And, some kinds of heritable valuables are supposed to be bequeathed to a child of the opposite sex, whatever that sex is. (For yet other heritable properties there may be no pressure to bequeath it to one sex of child rather than another.) Independently; it is thought that some kinds of heritable goods of all the above kinds, should not be divided; one child should inherit the whole thing. For some kinds of property, the oldest child of the appropriate sex is considered the best inheritor; for other kinds of property, the youngest child of the appropriate sex (should I abbreviate that COTAS?) is expected to be chosen as the inheritor. (For other kinds of property the decessor can freely (or perhaps restricted only to sex, not to birth-order) choose which child should inherit; and for yet others it is appropriate to divide the bequest among the heirs, or among the male heirs, or among the female heirs, or among the heirs of the appropriate sex.) People are naturally going to keep track of which of their siblings will probably inherit; and also keep track of what kind of competition a given sibling is to themselves. So, for instance, a man is going to want words for: * my father's oldest son (who'll probably get things I won't get, unless I [u:8538986b9e][i:8538986b9e]am[/i:8538986b9e][/u:8538986b9e] his oldest son). * my father's youngest son (who'll probably get other, different, things I won't get, unless I [u:8538986b9e][i:8538986b9e]am[/i:8538986b9e][/u:8538986b9e] his youngest son). * my mother's oldest son (who'll probably get yet some third kinds of things I won't get, unless I [u:8538986b9e][i:8538986b9e]am[/i:8538986b9e][/u:8538986b9e] her oldest son). * my mother's youngest son (who'll probably get a fourth kind of things I won't get, unless I [u:8538986b9e][i:8538986b9e]am[/i:8538986b9e][/u:8538986b9e] her youngest son). * my father's son older than me (who, even if father's oldest son dies, will probably get some things instead of me, unless he dies too; but won't get other things, even if father's youngest son dies, unless I die too). * my father's son younger than me (who, even if father's youngest son dies, will probably get some things instead of me, unless he dies too; but won't get other things, even if father's oldest son dies, unless I die too). * my mother's son older than me (who, even if mother's oldest son dies, will probably get some things instead of me, unless he dies too; but won't get other things, even if father's youngest son dies, unless I die too). * my mother's son younger than me (who, even if mother's youngest son dies, will probably get some things instead of me, unless he dies too; but won't get other things, even if father's oldest son dies, unless I die too). Maybe he won't have to be so specific about his sisters. Or maybe he will, but for other reasons than the ones we've considered so far. Women, OTOH, will probably keep track of their mother's oldest daughter, their mother's youngest daughter, their father's oldest daughter, their father's youngest daughter, and which of their mother's daughters are older than themselves and which younger than themselves, and which of their father's daughters are older and which are younger. Maybe women won't need to be so precise about their brothers. Or maybe they will, but for other reasons than I've mentioned so far. [b:8538986b9e][u:8538986b9e]- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [/u:8538986b9e][/b:8538986b9e] At any rate, words for "sibling" will need to vary according to which sex the sibling is, whether the sibling is older or younger than Ego, and which of their parents they share. So one would expect around eight different words for "sibling"; maybe sixteen if they distinguish "older" from "oldest" and "younger" from "youngest". I haven't yet seen a need for words that distinguish full-siblings from half-siblings. Can anyone else think of one? [b:8538986b9e][u:8538986b9e]__________________________________________________[/u:8538986b9e][/b:8538986b9e] People will also keep track of which of their aunts and/or uncles will inherit ahead of or behind their own parents. So a man will keep track of which of his father's father's sons is oldest and which is youngest and which are older than his father and which are younger than his father; and a man will also keep track of which of his mother's father's daughters is oldest and which is youngest and which are older than his mother and which are younger than his mother. A woman, meanwhile, will keep track of which of her mother's mother's daughters is oldest and which is youngest and which are older than her mother and which are younger than her mother; and will also keep track of which of her father's mother's sons is oldest and which is youngest and which are older than her father and which are younger than her father. But perhaps people won't need to keep much track of the relative ages of their mother's brothers or their father's sisters. Or, maybe they will, but not for the reasons we are now considering. One's father's brothers are one's classificatory fathers. People keep track of the relative ages of some of their classificatory fathers; women keep track of their father's mother's sons, and men keep track of their father's fathers sons. Similarly, one's mother's sisters are one's classificatory mothers, and people keep track of the relative ages of some of their classificatory mothers; men keep track of their mother's father's daughters and women keep track of their mother's mother's daughters. Men don't need -- at least not for these reasons -- to keep careful track of the ages of their father's mother's sons (even though those are their classificatory fathers) or of their mother's mother's daughters (even though those are their classificatory mothers). Likewise women don't, for these reasons at least, need to keep track of the relative ages of their mother's father's daughters or of their father's father's sons, even those are, respectively, their classificatory mothers and their classificatory fathers. Some people need to care about the ages of some of their FBs, but not, maybe, of some of the others; and some people will need to care about the ages of some of their MZs, but maybe not of some of the others. And we still don't have a reason to keep track of the ages of one's FZs or MBs. But there may be one; I'll have to see. And, note that, so far, I've come up with reasons to keep track of how old certain aunts/uncles are relative to parents and to each other, but not how old they are relative to their nieces/nephews. But I have to go now; more later.

[unparsed]I just realized that I'd begun discussing a third-degree relationship -- aunts and uncles -- without finishing discussing Adpihi's take on second-degree relationships. [size=14:b7b4693630][b:b7b4693630][u:b7b4693630]Parents' parents[/u:b7b4693630]:[/b:b7b4693630][/size:b7b4693630] Adpihi need (or, at least, have) different words for mother's mother, father's father, mother's father, and father's mother. [size=14:b7b4693630][b:b7b4693630][u:b7b4693630]Children's children[/u:b7b4693630]:[/b:b7b4693630][/size:b7b4693630] An Adpihi parent needs different words for their oldest daughter, their youngest daughter, their oldest son, and their youngest son. Probably they also need words for any other daughter and any other son. They might need, or at least have, a word for "only son" and/or a word for "only daughter"; I haven't decided yet. A man may pass on something to his oldest son's oldest son, his youngest son's youngest son, his oldest daughter's oldest son, and his youngest daughter's youngest son. But he's unlikely to pass any uniquely heritable property to any other grandchild unless one of those dies or is never born. In particular he doesn't need special words for his sons' daughters nor his daughters' daughters; nor for his oldest son's younger sons or his oldest daughter's younger sons, or his youngest son's older sons or his youngest daughter's older sons, or the sons of any of his other daughters or sons. Or, rather, he doesn't need such distinctions for purposes of bequeathing prroperty. Any child he has may eventually have descendants who bear any name he has. In particular he gets to pick the names of his sons' daughters. And similarly, a woman may pass on something to her oldest daughter's oldest daughter, her youngest daughter's youngest daughter, her oldest son's oldest daughter, and her youngest son's youngest daughter. But she's unlikely to pass any uniquely heritable property to any other grandchild unless one of those dies or is never born. In particular she may not need, at least for purposes of bequeathing heritable property, special words for her daughter' sons nor her sons' sons; nor for her oldest daughter's younger daughters or her oldest son's younger daughters, or her youngest daughter's older daughters or her youngest son's older daughter, or the daughters of any of her other daughters or sons. But, any child she has may eventually have descendants who bear any name she has. And she gets to choose the names of her daughters' sons. So there probably will be words for: {oldest|youngest|other}{daughter's|son's}{oldest|youngest|other}{daughter|son}; thus 36 words for "child's child". At a minimum we need ten words for the following: oldest {son's|daughter's} oldest {son|daughter}, youngest {son's|daughter's} youngest {son|daughter}, namesake grandchild, any other grandchiild [size=14:b7b4693630][b:b7b4693630][u:b7b4693630]Spouses[/u:b7b4693630]:[/b:b7b4693630][/size:b7b4693630] One's first spouse is, ideally and typically, older than oneself; and one's second spouse is, ideally and typically, younger than oneself. One's third spouse may be either older or younger than oneself, but ideally and typically not by much; and, ideally and typically, one's third spouse is intermediate in age between one's first spouse and one's second spouse. (Also, typically, one has no children by one's third spouse, though surely this does occasionally happen, or, at least, has occasionally happened.) So one needs words for "spouse older than Ego" and "spouse younger than Ego". IMO one also needs words for "husband" (i.e. "male spouse") and "wife" (i.e. "female spouse"). But I see no reason Adpihi would distinguish between a spouse with whom one has produced a child and a spouse with whom one has not produced a child. Nor do I see why Adpihi would distinguish between a spouse with whom one has produced a daughter and a spouse with whom one has produced a son. If anyone else thinks of a reason, would you post it in a reply to this thread, please? I would appreciate it. [b:b7b4693630][u:b7b4693630]- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -[/u:b7b4693630][/b:b7b4693630] [size=16:b7b4693630][b:b7b4693630][u:b7b4693630]OK, back to third-degree relatives.[/u:b7b4693630][/b:b7b4693630][/size:b7b4693630] A woman on Adpihi will keep track of her mother's oldest daughter's oldest daughter, her mother's youngest daughter's youngest daughter, her father's oldest daughter's oldest son, and her father's youngest daughter's youngest son. But maybe she won't care how the ages of these nieces and nephews, compare to the ages of her own children; and maybe she won't care about the ages of her brother's children, just as she needn't worry about the ages of her mother's daughters' sons nor her father's daughters' daughters. But any daughter of any sibling might carry one of her names, or at least eventually have descendants who do. And perhaps the same is true of any son of any sibling. A man on Adpihi will keep track of his father's oldest son's oldest son, his father's youngest son's youngest son, his mother's oldest son's oldest daughter, and his mother's youngest son's youngest daughter. But maybe he won't care how the ages of these nieces and nephews, compare to the ages of his own children; and maybe he won't care about the ages of his sister's children, just as he needn't worry about the ages of his father's sons' daughters nor his mother's sons' sons. But any son of any sibling might carry one of his names, or at least eventually have descendants who do. And perhaps the same is true of any daughter of any sibling. So we're now at the point of deciding which of the following meanings need their own word attached to them. {mother's|father's}{oldest|youngest|other older than me|other younger than me}{daughter's|son's}{oldest|youngest|other}{daughter|son} That's at most 2*4*2*3*2 or 96 terms for niece/nephew.However IMO there are not likely to be 96 kinterms for the small semantic sub-field of nieces-and-nephews. I could be wrong. I'll make up my mind after someone else has made a suggestion. [u:b7b4693630]___________________________________________________________[/u:b7b4693630] I think I need a break. I may be falling asleep. If I wake up before midnight I may resume this post. Otherwise I'll start a new post tomorrow.

[unparsed][size=14:b00f9c4a1a][u:b00f9c4a1a][b:b00f9c4a1a]Parents' parents' parents and children's children's children:[/b:b00f9c4a1a][/u:b00f9c4a1a][/size:b00f9c4a1a] What are the odds that all eight of a person's great-grandparents will still be alive by the time the child learns to talk? That depends on the elders' longevity and on everybody's age at reproduction. Imagine a family in which everyone has four children; one when age 17, one when age 20, one when age 25, and one when age 33. Each person, therefore, has 16 grandchildren (the first at age 34, the last at age 66); and 64 great-grandchildren (the first at age 51, the last at age 99). If someone lives to be 99 they'll be alive for the births of all 64 great-grandchildren. Assuming the child learns to talk at age 2, the elder would have to live to the age of 101 to speak to the youngest one. If someone lives to age 70, they'll be alive for the births of 35 of their great-grandchildren. Of these, 26 will be old enough to talk (but several won't be old enough to be toilet trained) before the end of the elder's lifespan. (Their youngest grandchild will be only 4 when they die; and two other grandchildren will be only 12.) So let's set the odds that any given great-grandparent of the average child will still be alive when that child learns to talk at 26/64 = 40.625%. Then the odds that all eight will still be alive is probably around the eighth power of that, or less than 0.0742%. (Making the simplifying assumption that each great-grandparent's lifespan is independent of each of the others'.) The odds that seven of them are still alive at the child's second birthday are about 8*(0.40625 ^7)*(0.59125) or about 0.867%. The odds that six are still alive are about 28*(0.41^6)*(0.59^2) or about 4.437%. And the odds that five are still alive are about 56*(0.41^5)*(0.59^3) or about 12.97%. So under those conditions, maybe a kid would need to be able to distinguish between up to five great-grandparents around 13% of the time at least. OTOH suppose the average lifespan is 99 years. Then a given person would be alive for the births of all 64 great-grandchildren; but the youngest would still be too young to talk by the time the great-grandparent died. So we might assume the odds that a given child still had a particular great-grandparent living by the time that child learns to talk is about 63/64 or 98.4375%. The odds that all eight great-grandparents are still living by the child's birthday is, therefore, more than 88%. Since I mean Adpihi to go from, approximately, the equivalent of the late Neolithic to something equivalent to our future, their lifespans will vary between something less than 70 years to about 120 years. (That 70-year lifespan will be achieved sometime between the equivalent of the Bronze Age and the equivalent of the Iron Age.) I guess that means Adpihi needs eight separate terms for all eight great-grandparents; MMM, MMF, MFM, MFF, FMM, FMF, FFM, FFF. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * How many terms does a person need for great-grandchildren? Suppose on the average a person has at most three children of whom at most two are sons and at most two are daughters; has at most five grandchildren of whom at most three are grandsons and at most three are granddaughters; and has at most nine great-grandchildren of whom at most five are great-grandsons and at most five are great-granddaughters. Will they really need separate kinterms for each one? I'm thinking no; I'm thinking they'll call them by their proper names. That might depend on whether they can remember the names of all the great-grandchildren. They probably won't have trouble with the names of the grandchildren, at least not until their memories start to go, but if people average six or seven children apiece then by the time their great-grandchildren are all born there'll be a shitload of names to remember. (I mean, a metric shit-ton. Between 6^3 = 216 and 7^3 = 343, if they're alive for all of the births.) So suppose there were special kinterms only for great-grandchildren who might inherit something special. Such as: oldest daughter's oldest daughter's oldest daughter oldest son's oldest son's oldest son oldest daughter's oldest son's oldest daughter oldest son's oldest daughter's oldest son youngest daughter's youngest daughter's youngest daughter youngest son's youngest son's youngest son youngest daughter's youngest son's youngest daughter youngest son's youngest daughter's youngest son The thing is, if your lifespan is shorter than 99 years -- say it's 70 years -- you're not likely to be around when those "youngest [i:b00f9c4a1a]X[/i:b00f9c4a1a]'s youngest [i:b00f9c4a1a]Y[/i:b00f9c4a1a]'s youngest [i:b00f9c4a1a]Z[/i:b00f9c4a1a]" great-grandchildren are born; at least, not for more than one of them. So if there are special terms they're likely to be only those first four. A woman will be especially interested in her oldest daughter's oldest daughter's oldest daughter and in her oldest son's oldest daughter's oldest son. A man will be especially interested in his oldest son's oldest son's oldest son and in his oldest daughter's oldest son's oldest daughter. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I think I covered [size=14:b00f9c4a1a][u:b00f9c4a1a][b:b00f9c4a1a]Parents' parents' children and parent's children's children:[/b:b00f9c4a1a][/u:b00f9c4a1a][/size:b00f9c4a1a] in a previous post. A parent's parent's child is a grandparent's child, that is, a parent's (half-?)sibling, that is, a (half-?)aunt or (half-?)uncle. A parent's child's child is a parent's grandchild, that is, a (half-?)sibling's child, that is, a (half-?)niece or (half-?)nephew. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * [size=14:b00f9c4a1a][u:b00f9c4a1a][b:b00f9c4a1a]Childrens' parents' parents and children's children's parents:[/b:b00f9c4a1a][/u:b00f9c4a1a][/size:b00f9c4a1a] If I am not mistaken I also covered these in a previous post. I'll have to re-read the thread to be certain. A chiild's other parent's parent is a spouse's parent, that is, a parent-in-law. A child's child's other parent is a child's spouse, that is, a child-in-law. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * [size=14:b00f9c4a1a][u:b00f9c4a1a][b:b00f9c4a1a]Childrens' parents' children and parent's children's parents:[/b:b00f9c4a1a][/u:b00f9c4a1a][/size:b00f9c4a1a] Your child's other parent's other child, if not your child, is your spouse's child and your child's half-siblling; in otherwords, your stepchild. Your parent's other child's other parent, if not your own other parent, is your parent's spouse and your half-siblling's parent; in otherwords, your stepparent. It's almost 2 a.m. and I still have to memorize my poem for the talent show tomorrow, so I'm going to bed. I probably won't get back to this until day after tomorrow (Sunday Nov 9) at the earliest.

[unparsed]What does a bequestorix do when she has heritable property that ought to go to a daughter but she has no daughters? Linguistically (or lexiconically) she's been trained to call her sisters' daughters "daughter" just as if they were her own. So she might leave it to one of her nieces -- one of the daughters of one of her sisters. Linguistically (or lexiconically) she's been trained to call her husbands' daughters "daughter" just as if they were her own. So she might leave it to one of her step-daughters. What if she has no sisters, or none of them have any daughters? Linguistically (or lexiconically) she's been trained to call her female parallel cousins "sister" just as if they shared a father or(/and) a mother. That is, she calls her father's brothers' daughters "sister" and also calls her mother's sisters' daughters "sister". So she calls the daughter of such a parallel cousin "daughter" just like she'd call some of her nieces (namely, her sisters' daughters) "daughter". Linguistically (or lexiconically) she's been trained to call her husbands' other wives "sister" just as if they shared a father or(/and) a mother. So she'd call the daughters of such co-wives "daughter" as if they were her sisters' daughters or her husbands' daughters, even if by [i:41ffe9dfb5][u:41ffe9dfb5]our[/u:41ffe9dfb5][/i:41ffe9dfb5] terms they "weren't really" step-daughters. Similar remarks, changing only what must be changed, apply if a woman has property that ought to be bequeathed to (and inherited by) a son, but she has no sons. And again, mutatis mutandis, similar remarks apply if a man has property that ought to go to a daughter but has no daughters; or a man has property that ought to go to a son but has no sons.

[unparsed][size=16:a4db892758][u:a4db892758][b:a4db892758]Some General Principles Emerge![/b:a4db892758][/u:a4db892758][/size:a4db892758] [size=14:a4db892758][b:a4db892758]If Ego and Alter share a commmon ancestor:[/b:a4db892758][/size:a4db892758] The kinterm used will probably be sensitive * to the sex of the apical ancestor(ancestress), * and also to the sexes of the subapical ancestral (half-)siblings. It is also likely to be sensitive (in order of decreasing likelyhood of how sensitive it's likely to be or how likely it is to be sensitive) * to the sexes of Ego and Alter (mostly to Alter's sex, or else to whether the sexes are opposite or same); * to the sexes of Ego's parent and/or Alter's parent if either or both of them are in the chain of connecting relatives; * to the sexes of Ego's grandparent and/or Alter's grandparent if either or both of them are in the chain of connecting relative. But it may not be sensitive (dare I say "probably won't be sensitive"?) to the sexes of anyone else in the chain of connecting relatives, beyond selecting one the following four possibilities: * Everyone else (do I need "else"?) in the chain is female. * Everyone else (do I need "else"?) in the chain is male. * The sexes of everyone else (do I need "else"?) in the chain alternate. * None of the above. So much for sexes. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * As for ages: If the subapical pair of ancestral siblings are of opposite sex, [u:a4db892758][i:a4db892758]that[/i:a4db892758][/u:a4db892758] is the crucial fact; it makes their relative ages irrelevant (to the kinterm system, not necessarily to the people involved). It [i:a4db892758]might[/i:a4db892758] still matter whether and which of them is the apical ancestor's oldest daughter or youngest daughter or oldest son or youngest son. But other than that it won't matter which of them is older than the other. OTOH if the subapical pair of ancestral siblings are the same sex, it certainly matters whether and which of them is the apical ancestor's oldest daughter or youngest daughter or oldest son or youngest son; and probably it also matters which of them is older and which of them is younger than the other. But the kinterm system "won't care" (i.e. won't be sensitive to or influenced by) the relative ages of other pairs of relatives in the chain of connecting relatives; except perhaps (probably?) to distinguish which of the following three possibilities is true: * Everyone of Alter's ancestors (in the chain of connecting relatives) (except for Ego's ancestor) is the oldest daughter or oldest son of the next ancestor up the chain. * Everyone of Alter's ancestors (in the chain of connecting relatives) (except for Ego's ancestor) is the youngest daughter or youngest son of the next ancestor up the chain. * Neither of the above. Even then this probably won't matter unless either: * Everyone in the chain (save, possibly, Ego and Alter themselves) is female; or, * Everyone in the chain (save, possibly, Ego and Alter themselves) is male; or, * The sexes of everyone in the chain (save, possibly, Ego and Alter themselves) alternate. But if a kinterm system has the means to distinguish two different features, it is no stretch to think that it might be able to distinguish both of them simultaneously, even when for some values of each the distinction between certain values of the other have no sociocultural or socioeconomic relevance. Likewise if it can make distinctions that matter when Ego (or Alter) is one sex but don't matter if Ego (or Alter) is the other sex, it will probably still make the distinction no matter what sex Ego (or Alter) is. And a similar remark, [i:a4db892758]mutatis mutandis[/i:a4db892758], is true of Ego's and/or Alter's age(s) or birth-order(s). If the kinterm system can make a distinction that matters if Ego/Alter is the oldest/youngest daughter/son, it will still (probably) make that distinction even when they're (either or both) (a) middle daughter(s)/son(s). * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * This will affect the kinterm system for fourth- and fifth-degree relatives. And of course also for sixth-degree relatives. I don't think Adpihi will bother to keep track of seventh-degree or more distant relatives. I know some natcultures have kept track of seventh-degree and eighth-degree relatives; but TTBOMK none ever kept track of ninth-degree or more distant relatives. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * [size=16:a4db892758][u:a4db892758][b:a4db892758]Ancestors and Descendants:[/b:a4db892758][/u:a4db892758][/size:a4db892758] [size=14:a4db892758][b:a4db892758]Children's children's children's children, etc.:[/b:a4db892758][/size:a4db892758] [size=14:a4db892758][b:a4db892758](and also parents' parents' parents' parents, etc.:[/b:a4db892758][/size:a4db892758] If a lifespan is 70 years and a generation is 17 years, a person could be alive to witness the birth of their oldest child's oldest child's oldest child's oldest child at age 68; and to talk to that great-great-grandchild at age 70. But they'll never meet any other great-great-grandchildren than that one. And if a lifespan is 120 years and a generation is 33 years, a person would be 132 years old at the birth of their oldest child's oldest child's oldest child's oldest child; and so would already have deceased. Suppose a lifespan is 99 years and a generation is 20 years. A person would be 80 years old at the birth of their oldest child's oldest child's oldest child's oldest child, and that child would be 19 years old at the death of their younger parent's younger parent's younger parent's younger parent. The elder might get to speak to more than one great-great-grandchild. Suppose a lifespan is 99 years and a generation is 25 years. A person would be 100 years old at the birth of their oldest child's oldest child's oldest child's oldest child, and so would already have deceased. Lifespans and generation-lengths correlate positively, though not perfectly. If we consider three possible lifespans -- 70 years, 99 years, and 120 years -- and four possible generation-times -- 17 years, 20 years, 25 years, and 33 years -- then the shorter lifespans are unlikely to co-occur with the longer generation-times and the longer lifespans are unlikely to co-occur with the shorter generation-times. It might not (or might :oops: :roll: ) be redundant to say that the correlation is bi-directional; the shorter generation times are unlikely to co-occur with the longer lifespans and the longer generation-times are unlikely to co-occur with the shorter lifespans. But even with a long 120-year lifespan and a short 17-year generation time, a person will not be alive for the birth of any eighth-generation-or-more-distant descendants, nor to talk with any seventh-generation-or-more-distant descendants. On Adpihi and in Adpihi society there are several compelling reasons to keep track of one's fourth-degree relatives. (The reasons for keeping track of fifth-degree or more distant relatives are fewer and less compelling.[color=brown:a4db892758]*[/color:a4db892758]) But to have words, rather than phrases, devoted to fourth-degree relatives, would take up way too much room in the vocabulary, IMO. So fourth-degree "kinterms" will be phrases like "mommy's great-grandma" or "grandmommy's grandma" or "great-grandma's mommy" or the (rough near-)equivalent. [color=brown:a4db892758]*[size=11:a4db892758](In later Adpihi society, at any rate. Clearly (unless I change my mind) in "the dim past of pre-history" it was once important to keep track of third-cousins (specifically MFMBDSD for men and FMFZSDS for women), who are seventh- or eighth- -degree relatives, depending whether one counts them as parents' parents' parents' siblings' children's children's children, or as parents' parents' parents' parents' children's children's children's children. But even then there was no need to keep track of ninth-degree or more distant relatives.)[/size:a4db892758][/color:a4db892758] This is most apparently well-motivated in considering great-great-grandparents and great-great-grandchldren. Most people will never converse with most such relatives. So most children are likely to think of most of their great-great-grandparents as their relatives' relatives rather than as their own relatives. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I believe I have now covered: * parents' parents' parents' parents (great-great-grandparents); * children's children's children's children (great-great-grandchildren); * parents' parents' parents' children (aka grandparents' siblings aka grandaunts and granduncles); * parents' children's children's children (aka siblings' grandchildren aka grandnieces and grandnephews); * and parents' parents' children's children (aka first-cousins). So, now, what about: * children's parents' parents' parents, * children's children's children's parents, and * children's children's parents' parents? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [size=14:a4db892758][b:a4db892758]General Principle:[/b:a4db892758][/size:a4db892758] A descendant's ancestor is a less-distant descendant's spouse's less-distant ancestor. The kinterm-system will not be sensitive to the sex of, nor even to the actual life-status (that is, "essential vs potential", that is, has been conceived vs hoped-and-expected-to-be conceived) of, the youngest person in the chain of connecting relatives; the person at the "root" of the chain. [size=14:a4db892758][b:a4db892758]and yet another General Principle:[/b:a4db892758][/size:a4db892758] If a chain of connecting relatives includes a spouse, the kinterm-system will be sensitive to which of the spouses is older than or younger than the other. Or, at least, it will if there's only one "spouse" in the chain. Maybe if there are two or more, it will be [u:a4db892758]age[/u:a4db892758]-sensitive only to the marriage closest to Ego in the chain and/or the marriage closest to Alter in the chain. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - So Ego's child's parent's parent's parent will be Ego's spouse's grandparent; Ego's "grandparent-in-law". The (phrasal! not single words!) kinterms might be for: [list=1:a4db892758][*:a4db892758]Ego's older husband's mother's mother [*:a4db892758]Ego's older husband's mother's father [*:a4db892758]Ego's older husband's father's mother [*:a4db892758]Ego's older husband's father's father [*:a4db892758]Ego's younger husband's mother's mother [*:a4db892758]Ego's younger husband's mother's father [*:a4db892758]Ego's younger husband's father's mother [*:a4db892758]Ego's younger husband's father's father [*:a4db892758]Ego's older wife's mother's mother [*:a4db892758]Ego's older wife's mother's father [*:a4db892758]Ego's older wife's father's mother [*:a4db892758]Ego's older wife's father's father [*:a4db892758]Ego's younger wife's mother's mother [*:a4db892758]Ego's younger wife's mother's father [*:a4db892758]Ego's younger wife's father's mother [*:a4db892758]Ego's younger wife's father's father[/list:o:a4db892758] But people will probably use phrases for parent-in-law's parent, and/or for spouse's grandparent, instead. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - So what about chldren's children's children's parents? Ego's child's child's child's parent is Ego's child's child's spouse. The kinterms for "child's child's spouse" will not be sensitive to the question of whether or not the grandchild and his/her spouse have had a child, much less to the sex of that child. So we're talking about Ego's grandchild's spouse, that is, Ego's grandchild-in-law. Let's just assume that if Ego lives long enough to converse with their grandchild's third spouse they'll just call them "Bob" or "Jane" or whatever and won't care what their sex is (or more specifically won't care whether their grandchild's spouse's sex is the same as or opposite to their grandchild's sex.) Then, as far as the kinterm system is concerned, we're talking about either a granddaughter's husband or a grandson's wife. There are six terms for "granddaughter", with the following meanings: [list=1:a4db892758][*:a4db892758]oldest daughter's oldest daughter [*:a4db892758]youngest daughter's youngest daughter [*:a4db892758]daughter's daughter [*:a4db892758]oldest son's oldest daughter [*:a4db892758]youngest son's youngest daughter [*:a4db892758]son's daughter[/list:o:a4db892758] Combining these with the two terms for "husband", whose more specific meanings are "older husband" and "younger husband", we get twelve [u:a4db892758][i:a4db892758]phrases[/i:a4db892758][/u:a4db892758] meaning "granddaughter's husband". A similar calculation gives us twelve phrases meaning "grandson's wife". So that's a total of 24 phrases for grandchild-in-law that take the form of "grandchild's spouse". . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . OTOH we could use, also or instead, phrases analogous to "child's child-in-law". Six words could each replace "child's"; they'd mean: [list=1:a4db892758][*:a4db892758]oldest daughter's [*:a4db892758]youngest daughter's [*:a4db892758]daughter's [*:a4db892758]oldest son's [*:a4db892758]youngest son's [*:a4db892758]son's[/list:o:a4db892758] And twelve words could replace "child-in-law"; they'd mean: [list=1:a4db892758][*:a4db892758]oldest daughter's older husband [*:a4db892758]oldest daughter's younger husband [*:a4db892758]youngest daughter's older husband [*:a4db892758]youngest daughter's younger husband [*:a4db892758]daughter's older husband [*:a4db892758]daughter's younger husband [*:a4db892758]oldest son's older wife [*:a4db892758]oldest son's younger wife [*:a4db892758]youngest son's older wife [*:a4db892758]youngest son's younger wife [*:a4db892758]son's older wife [*:a4db892758]son's younger wife[/list:o:a4db892758] Combining them we'd get another 72 phrasal kinterms meaning "grandchild-in-law", in this case taking the form of "child's child-in-law". * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * [size=13:a4db892758][b:a4db892758]And now, what of children's children's parents' parents?[/b:a4db892758][/size:a4db892758] What about my child's spouse's parent? my child-in-law's parent? my child's parent-in-law? Even though neither English nor, IIANM, any other language I can reasonably claim to sort-of know, has a term for this relationship, I know [i:a4db892758][u:a4db892758]of[/u:a4db892758][/i:a4db892758] some languages that do (among them, Turkish); and I've read that it's "the most common three-step kinterm". I have been using [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ally]"ally"[/url] as if it were the English term for this relationship. There are: * six one-word kinterms for "child" {oldest | youngest | unspecified} x {daughter | son} * and eight for "parent-in-law" {older | younger} x {wife's | husband's} x {mother | father}. There may be only twenty-four, not forty-eight, commonly-used phrases that take the form "child's parent-in-law"; we might skip any phrase whose English gloss had "son's husband" or "daughter's wife" as a substring. On the other hand, maybe not. If Ego survives to be a great-grandparent, and we've seen that that isn't too unlikely in good times, then Ego's child has survived to be a grandparent; and may have contracted a third marriage. And we've seen that same-sex marriages aren't unlikely for third marriages. It's been suggested that in bad times, third marriages are likelier to be same-sex than opposite-sex; but in bad times Ego is less likely (maybe [b:a4db892758]un[/b:a4db892758]likely) to live to attend their child's third wedding. In good times I don't expect there'll be a preference for same-sex third-marriages; but FAIK (at the moment; I know I'm the one making this up so maybe i'll decide later) there may also be no preference, or at least no [u:a4db892758]strong[/u:a4db892758] preference, for [i:a4db892758]opposite[/i:a4db892758]-sex third marriages. So Ego may actually have one or two (or three?) sons' husbands and/or one or two (or three?) daughters' wives. Since kinterms for these relationships will be phrases composed out of two vocabulary items, anyone can make them up and anyone else can understand them; and maybe the relationships won't be so uncommon, so the phrasal kinterms will also be current. But note that I don't think there'll be any distinction between, for instance, "son's older husband" and "son's younger husband". If son has a husband he probably has only one and is expected to have only one; and that husband is supposed to be about the same age as son. Likewise, since if daughter has a wife she's expected to have only one wife in her lifetime, and since that wife is expected to be about the same age as daughter, there's no point in distinguishing "daughter's older wife" and "daughter's younger wife". I don't know how or even whether this should affect the kinterm system. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . There are (twelve or?) eighteen terms for child-in-law": {oldest | youngest | unspecified} x {daughter's older husband | daughter's younger husband | daughter's wife | son's older wife | son's younger wife | son's husband}. And there are two terms for parent: {mother | father}. So there can be 36 two-word phrasal kinterms for "ally" along the lines of "child-in-law's parent". And there are six terms for "child": {oldest | youngest | unspecified} x {daughter | son}. And eight terms for "parent-in-law": {older | younger} x {wife's | husband's} x {mother | father}. So there could be 48 two-word phrasal kinterms for "ally" along the lines of "child's parent-in-law"; although I (think I seriously) doubt that phrases whose English glosses would include one of the substrings * "daughter's older wife", * "daughter's younger wife", * "son's older husband", * "son's younger husband"; will be very current. [color=darkblue:a4db892758][u:a4db892758]+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++[/u:a4db892758][/color:a4db892758] Next, I want to look at the fourth-degree kinterms for relationships involving a "double twist". Parents' parent's children's parents; Parents' children's parent's parents; Children's children's parents' children; Children's parents' children's children; Parents' children's children's parents; Children's parents' parents' children. Those are nearly the most complex fourth-degree relationships. There are still two types of "triple-twist" fourth-degree kinships; I'll work on them one day. But today I'm going to take a break right now. Maybe I'll do more tonight. Or maybe not until next week sometime.

[unparsed]It's becoming clear to me that the reproductive marriages (the first and second marriages) in Adpihi society are line-marriages. If a married couple and her other husband and his other wife all live together in the same household, that's indisputably a iine-marriage. If a person ([size=12:89222980a9]E[/size:89222980a9][size=9:89222980a9]GO[/size:89222980a9]) lives in a household with their parents, and with their older parent's child by that parent's older spouse, and with their younger parent's child by that parent's younger spouse, and with their older parent's older spouse and their younger parent's younger spouse, then that person is living in a line-marriage household. ([size=12:89222980a9]E[/size:89222980a9][size=9:89222980a9]GO[/size:89222980a9])'s half-siblings will be each other's step-siblings, and they'll be living in the same household with each other. ([size=12:89222980a9]E[/size:89222980a9][size=9:89222980a9]GO[/size:89222980a9]) might reasonably regard all offspring (other than their half-siblings) of any couple (not including either of their parents) in this line-marriage as step-siblings. [u:89222980a9][b:89222980a9]_____________________________________________________________[/b:89222980a9][/u:89222980a9] A parent's parent's child's parent is a parent's parent's spouse, that is, a parent's stepparent or a grandparent's spouse, that is, a step-grandparent or grand-stepparent. There'd be twelve kinds: {mother's | father's} x {mother's older husband | mother's younger husband | mother's wife | father's older wife | father's younger wife | father's husband}. Note that these would all be short two-word phrases, not self-contained single-word kinterms. Also note that a mother's wife would never be a mother's child's mother, a daughter's wife would never be a daughter's child's mother, a father's husband would never be a father's child's father, and a son's husband would never be a son's child's father. A parent's child's parent's parent would be a parent's spouse's parent, also a parent's parent-in-law or a stepparent's parent, which in English might also be called a step-grandparent or a grand-stepparent. Again there'd be twelve kinds: {mother's older husband's | mother's younger husband's | mother's wife's | father's older wife's | father's younger wife's | father's husband's} x {mother | father}. Note that these would all be short two-word phrases, not self-contained single-word kinterms. Also note that a mother's wife would never be a mother's child's mother, a daughter's wife would never be a daughter's child's mother, a father's husband would never be a father's child's father, and a son's husband would never be a son's child's father. A child's parent's child's child would be a child's niece-or-nephew or a spouse's grandchild or a stepchild's child. In English we might call this a step-grandchild or a grand-stepchild. How many of these phrases there might be would depend on how they're analyzed. I don't feel like writing them all out at the moment. Maybe I'll come back and do it later. A child's child's parent's child might be a child's stepchild or a grandchild's half-sibling or a child-in-law's child. In English we might call this, too, a step-grandchild or a grand-stepchild. Since there are at least two, maybe three, ways to analyze it, how many phrases one comes up with depends on how it's analyzed. I don't feel like writing any of them out right now; maybe I will later. A parent's child's child's parent is a (half-)sibling's spouse; in English we call this a sibling-in-law. A child's parent's parent's child is a spouse's (half-)sibling; in English we call this, too, a sibling-in-law. A parent's child's parent's child is a parent's stepchild or a half-sibling's half-sibling or a stepparent's child; in English we call this a step-siblling. Finally, a child's parent's child's parent is a child's stepparent or a spouse's spouse or a stepchild's parent. English doesn't have a term for this; I've been using "co-spouse" as if that were English's term for this. In Adpihi's classificatory kinship system, a co-spouse will be classified as a sibling. If E[size=9:89222980a9]GO[/size:89222980a9] is a wife, her co-wife is (classified as) her "sister". If E[size=9:89222980a9]GO[/size:89222980a9] is a husband, his co-husband is (classified as) his "brother". As long as we're looking at only the reproductive-capable and reproduction-expected marriages, that is, most folks' first and second marriages, then E[size=9:89222980a9]GO[/size:89222980a9] may (if she is female) have a line of sister co-wives, each married to two of E[size=9:89222980a9]GO[/size:89222980a9] 's classificatory husband's (classificatory brothers to either (and hence to both) of E[size=9:89222980a9]GO[/size:89222980a9] 's husbands). And mutatis mutandis if E[size=9:89222980a9]GO[/size:89222980a9] is male. Most of them will be older than E[size=9:89222980a9]GO[/size:89222980a9]. Indeed, assuming E[size=9:89222980a9]GO[/size:89222980a9] is female, her older husband's older wife is not unlikely to be almost old enough to be her mother, and her older husband's older wife's older husband is definitely old enough to be her father. Likewise, her younger husband's younger wife is not unlikely to be almost young enough to be her daughter, and her younger husband's younger wife's younger husband is definitely young enough to be her son. (And again mutatis mutandis if E[size=9:89222980a9]GO[/size:89222980a9] is male.) We can also look at the offspring of such a marriage-line and see how those offspring relate to each other. We've already seen that E[size=9:89222980a9]GO[/size:89222980a9]'s half-sibling's half-sibling is E[size=9:89222980a9]GO[/size:89222980a9]'s step-sibling. We might get around to considering E[size=9:89222980a9]GO[/size:89222980a9]'s step-sibling's half-sibling or E[size=9:89222980a9]GO[/size:89222980a9]'s half-sibling's step-sibling. E[size=9:89222980a9]GO[/size:89222980a9]'s younger parent's younger spouse is not unlikely to be not much older than E[size=9:89222980a9]GO[/size:89222980a9] ("about half a generation older", give or take a few years); so E[size=9:89222980a9]GO[/size:89222980a9]'s half-siblings by E[size=9:89222980a9]GO[/size:89222980a9]'s younger parent and that parent's younger spouse are not unlikely to be younger (about "half-a-generation") than E[size=9:89222980a9]GO[/size:89222980a9] (at any rate that's true of the younger such half-siblings and/or if E[size=9:89222980a9]GO[/size:89222980a9] is one of E[size=9:89222980a9]GO[/size:89222980a9]'s parents' older joint-efforts). In fact, E[size=9:89222980a9]GO[/size:89222980a9] is not unlikely (if that "about half-a-generation" is closer to a full generation than to half a generation) to be almost old enough to be a parent of some of those half-siblings. Now if this younger step-parent marries an even younger (by "about half a generation" again) spouse, E[size=9:89222980a9]GO[/size:89222980a9] is likely to be somewhere between about that that "step-step-parent"'s age and nearly a half-generation older than that "step-step-parent"; and so almost surely old enough to have been the biological parent of that step-step-parent's biological children, who are E[size=9:89222980a9]GO[/size:89222980a9]'s "step-half-siblings" or "half-step-siblings". And so on. As I feared, I don't remember what I was going to write here. So I'll just post it as-is and wait for inspiration to strike again.

[unparsed]This post is just a reminder to myself to review this and check whether it’s complete or there’s anything else I want to add.

> [unparsed]This post is just a reminder to myself to review this and check whether it’s complete or there’s anything else I want to add. This post is a bump.