What, exactly, does the phrase "to have and to hold" in traditional wedding vows mean?

That was his point. He thought your answer was invalid.

It may have been rudely stated but it does point to your explanation as having no evidence cited to support it.
We have an opinion section on this board which you can use or you can pose your response as a suggestion but without any cites you appear to be expressing an opinion instead of providing a factual answer.

helpful information for you.

Ass has multiple definitions including vulgar ones such as buttocks or rectum.

Hey, but besides all of the verbal sparring - Welcome to the Dope.

Originally, testament means testimony, not last will. The person giving the document is attesting that the decisions listed are, indeed, what he wants as his last will.

From etymonline

There is no indication of a Norman/Latin ancestor for either. There may be an implication of redundancy in that both say that ownership or possession is involved, and the redundant pairings common in law (given earlier by matt_mcl) may have influenced the wording. The CoE vows also has the line to love and to cherish, which do converge from Latin and German ancestries.

Remember that the lines come from the Book of Common Prayers, which was written in 1549 (not 1559). Modern people can interpret them in whatever way they want, obviously, but if you’re asking what the words meant when they were inserted into the vows you have to look at 16th century usage.

Yes it was. 5 years before you showed up.

[nitpick]

They’re actually much older than that, as Cranmer was merely adapting the familiar vows from the various liturgies used in England before the Reformation. See, for example, the version of the vows in the Use of York (p. 27).

[/nitpick]

And, yes, **Long Time Lurker **and Giles had this one nailed five years ago. The phrase is an instantly familiar one to anyone who has had cause to read older English legal deeds. Even illiterate brides and grooms would probably have recognised and understood it as a suitably solemn piece of legalese.

But… Latin habeo

When the election is done, the guy running the show comes out the Sistine chapel and announces “habemus papam…”

As is commonly found in European languages, the switch between “B” an “V” is not that distant.

But… You could have read my cite:

[ital added by Leo]

To follow this up, is the the consequent clause here “modern English” or what? I always thought it was subjunctive and that was that.

“If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well/It were done quickly:”

Macbeth I:7.1-2

Note: yes this is a drift leading to hijack, but it’s language and it’s Shakespeare, who always gets a pass.