I understand that my sister’s husband is my brother-in-law.
My wife is my sister’s sister-in-law.
Could my wife say that my sister’s husband is her brother-in-law?
If I were her I’d specify and say “my husband’s such and such in-law” for those relationships. But I’m a foreigner, so … (and male, but that doesn’t change the grammar)
Yes, you could describe that relationship as an in-law. A google for “define: brother in law” returns two sources, one that includes the husband of your spouses sister and one that doesn’t.
If my husband and I are to cleave into one (as older texts say) and become one marital entity (as my tax return says), than all of his brother-in-laws are my brother-in-laws, and that’s the way I’ve always heard it in popular usage.
It never occurred to me that referring to my husband’s brother’s wife as my sister-in-law could be contentious.
It may not be the “correct” term, but only the most pedantic people would quarrel about it. Almost everyone I know would describe it that way.
We can’t rule out pedantic in my case, but I have always been uncomfortable calling my wife’s sister’s husband my brother-in-law. The most comfortable I can get is by calling him my sister-in-law’s husband, or “one of my wife’s in-laws.”
I was fully grown before I ever saw a chart like this: RELATIONSHIP CHART (CONSANGUINITY) and before that I went with what my family had always used, which I have seen others ascribe to as well. But I have yet to find anything I regard as “authoritattive” on the specifics of in-law relationships. If anybody has such a thing, please share it.
There is no relationship - your spouse’s sibling’s spouse is just that, your in-law’s spouse. Most people generally just call them in-laws, though.
The term ‘in-law’ can be used to describe any member of a spouse’s family, or member of a sibling’s spouse’s family without causing confusion unless the context is a genetic or legal relationship. With the variations in marriage and family relationships in the modern world it can extend over a broad range. But if your building your family tree you’d want to differentiate between your spouse’s siblings and your spouse’s sibling’s spouses.
I would say “my sister-in-law’s husband”
There are some families (I grew up near some of them) where providing a name to a relationship (no matter how diffuse) was a way to add “kith” to “kin” and have as extended a family as possible. Imagine family reunions at a stadium!
It was not unusual to hear of somebody’s step-half-cousin-once-removed-in-law or worse. Also imagine how some Hollywood kids must relate to each other, whether they try to use names for those situations or not!
In the little reading I have done on other cultures’ consanguinity rules, it’s amazing that the one(s) we’re most familiar with are as simple as they are, no matter how confusing they may sound.
nm
The “law” we refer to when we say “brother-in-law” is canon law, and refers to a specific degree of affinity, that which “arises from a valid marriage, even if not consummated, and exists between a man and the blood relatives of the woman and between the woman and the blood relatives of the man.” (Canon 109, Section 1) No, your spouse’s in-laws are not your in-laws, although most will not argue with you if you say they are, as most are not Catholic, and even fewer have any idea where the expression comes from.
In the show Breaking Bad, Walter’s wife’s sister is married (to Hank). Walter calls Hank his brother-in-law many times in that series…so some people on this world seem to count it as being in-laws that way too, at least.
I personally wouldn’t refer to someone as removed as my wife’s brother’s wife as “my” anything, YMMV.
I say my brother-in-law’s wife or “the other daughter-in-law” (when I’m feeling snarky) when referring to my husband’s brother’s wife.
I do know a lot of people who would just say sister-in-law for that. Maybe if I liked her better.
Of course, if one is going to extend the term to a spouse’s sibling’s spouse, one could also extend it to a sibling’s spouse’s sibling. And once the precedent is set, what’s to stop you from chaining it indefinitely? Like, I have a sister. She’s married. Her husband also has a sister. She’s also married. Am I “related” to her husband? What if he has any siblings? What if any of his siblings are married?
minor nitpick: brothers-in-law, not brother-in-laws
“You mean your brother?”
I was just thinking this same thing. While I would call my wife’s sister’s husband my brother-in-law, I wouldn’t call my sister’s wife’s brother my brother-in-law.
The difference, I think, was alluded to above. When you get married, you acquire new parents (in a manner of speaking; obviously, relationships vary). So, you attend family gatherings together, etc. I would expect to see everyone born to a set of parents and their spouses at a family gathering; I wouldn’t expect to see the spouses’ siblings there, as those siblings haven’t married into the family…
Thank you for mentioning one of my favorite bits from AD:
“Gob’s Wife: I’m in love with your brother-in-law.
Gob: You’re in love with your own brother? The one in the army?
Gob’s Wife: No, your sister’s husband.
Gob: Michael? Michael!
Gob’s Wife: No, that’s your sister’s brother.
Gob: No, I’m my sister’s brother. You’re in love with me - me.
Gob’s Wife: I’m in love with Tobias.
Gob: My brother-in-law?”