Opothleyahola

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JIAFU.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

old talk

I removed the section on English kinship terminology for three reasons.

  1. it does not exist. scholars who write on kinship terminologies call this eskimo kinsip terminology
  2. there is a link to an article on eskimo kinship terminology that goes into the details. if we have all the deatisl in this article, we would need all the details on Sudanese, Hawaiian, Croa, Omaha, and Iroqois terminologies too and the article would be too long. linked articles on the specifics make sense.
  3. the material I deleted is also in the Family article which goes into greater detail on "the family" in Weastern societies. I think people who want to learn about the family structure of western societies are more likely to go to the family article than the kinship terminology article. Anyway, it is silly to have the same content repeated in different articles.Slrubenstein | Talk 12:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the removal of this information from this page, I cannot agree with your reasons for it.

  1. The English kinship terminology does indeed exist, and scholars who write about kinship terminologies call it by that name. Scholars also talk about the American (or Yankee) kinship terminology, the Polish kinship terminology, the Punjabi terminology, the Shipibo terminology and so on. This is easily verified.
  2. Rarely do these different terminologies (for what else would you call them?) precisely match the idealized terminological patterns (e.g. Eskimo, Sudanese, etc.) commonly used by anthropologists to broadly categorize different kinship terminologies employed by people. The Polish terminology is a good example of this. I think we risk much be excluding too much of this detail and presenting an overly simplified and reductionist account of kinship terminologies. Haven't anthropology moved on a little ways past Morgan by now? By attending to the difference between kinship terminology as analytic construct (e.g. Omaha kinship) vs. kinship terminology as object of study (e.g. Punjabi kinship) we leave open the possibility of having individual pages not only describing each of these categories of kinship terminology but also pages the many different kinship terminologies actually used. Occamserasure (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording "Western society" to "English speaking societies". It's clearly not an ideal wording either since there other societies sharing the same character, but it seems more reasonable to write something inaccurate than something truly false and ignorant. Another solution could be to emphasize even more that it's Morgan's views and words, if that is the case. This could be said e.g. with a title: Morgan's thoughts. The words "Western society" should not be used when meaning an English speaking society and maybe a couple of other societies having a similar logic in the language. The so called Western countries are NOT culturally uniform in the matter and therefore also languages differ in the case. -Western European Finnish speaker- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.157.74.216 (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also just removed a good deal of information on marriage and the family. These topics are different from kinship terminology and already have their own articles. I see no point in duplicating material in ther articles on related - but different - topics here. Let's just have links, and work on each article separately. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like to get all details. I wil donate for the xtra Kb of storage Nasz 09:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2013

There needs to be a section on English kinship terminology, because the lack of one leaves a gaping hole in the article, since it discusses other kinship terminology in English and using English terms. And people looking for information English kinship terminology will be directed here, though they may find some information in the Cousin article. SteveH (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't see your comment before, but it was added in the middle of a disorganized talk section. English-language kinship terminology is a quite standard "Eskimo" system. Subtle details about cousin terminology are mainly of interest to genealogists and inheritance lawyers (most ordinary people are quite vague about them, so it would be hard to say that they're part of basic English kinship terminology). AnonMoos (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

polish kinship

I removed this from the article ...

  • Polish Polish genealogy use wider set of single words to more precisely describe familiar relationship. The uncle may be stryj father brother or wój mother brother. Aunt is ether stryjenka, wójenka or ciocia. The cousin are bracia (brothers) srtyjeczni, wójeczni or cioteczni. Bracia stryjeczni are also call bratanki while bracia cioteczni siostrzńce.
Term wójenka stryjeczna is the (grand-)/father brother sister, this and all other terms are commonly used today when talking about or referring to family member. The system may be extended back with prefix grand - pra several generations back. Fuzzy maternal side ancestry is called pociot/y. Prefix pra may be used several times, for older relation is applied generic term seven waters after kisiel with some exception when bratanki are applied to Hungarian nation. The Polish Hungarian relationship has been recently proved by molecular genetics. The R1a haplogrup pointing to common biological father few millennia ago. Consult also Russian language family word племянник or племянница the plemie in Polish mean tribe while polish word for 'family' -rodzina is very similar to Rusian ‘‘rodina’’ which mean nation. The age distinguishing is created by suffixes. In old polish custom kids up to 7 years stay with mother, after postrzyżyny, go to father jurisdiction and get also new personal binominal single name. For mother father have gradual formal or friendly names and now 3 forms to refer to and one dual extinct. Even animals have different depending on sex names e.g. wolf: all walk, or personified wilcy or wilkowie, she wadera, he basior. It could be extended to all traditionally domesticated (extended family) animals e.g.: horse all konie, he ogier, she klacz, it zrebie. They ales have separate names for birth process. The animas even getting Christmas wishes (quite pagan by some) with specially prepared for them read oplatek. There are separate names for and for parents in love son/daughter in love, brothers in love. Parents and n-th ancestors have also general term Ojce. To word Ojce are related words Ojcowizna private estates or Ojczyzna estate of all. It should be noted that polish is not agglutinative language and the words are single words.

...because this is not one of the six systems laid out by Morgan. "Crow" kinship does not refer to the kindship of the Crow but to a system found widely around the world in different specific forms. This article is not the place to go into detail on every language. Besides, the above seems to violate NOR and NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

A number of terms redirect to this page but are not discussed here. For example, I came here via "Avunculocal" which is not mentioned at all in this article. Should the redirects be made into their own articles, or can someone flesh out the information here? 72.196.104.129 22:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I came here via "Consanguine" but there was no reference in the article either. 220.255.41.232 (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This point deserves reiteration, "Ambilocal" also redirects to this page where it isn't described at all. ialsoagree (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same with "neolocal" which redirects here even though it actually has its own article, neolocal residence. Absolutely senseless. Kbog (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those redirects are left over from the early days of Wikipedia when there were a lot fewer articles. "Avunculocal" was fixed almost three years ago. Fixed "Neolocal" just now... AnonMoos (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan's classification

From Eskimo kinship: "Morgan's system of classification is considered obsolete in current mainstream anthropology." What then is the modern view? 149.159.112.89 22:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the specific details of Morgan's researches are obsolete, and the terms "descriptive" and "classificatory" have been subjected to severe criticism, but the basic six-fold classification is still found practically useful. AnonMoos (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions of the six types

The definitions are a little unclear; as seen in common mid-20th-century use, the terms were really most clearly defined on the sibling-cousin generation:

Hawaiian kinship
Siblings and cousins not distinguished (the same terms are used for both types of relatives).
Eskimo kinship
Siblings are distinguished from cousins, while all types of cousins are grouped together.
Iroquois kinship
Siblings are grouped together with parallel cousins, while separate terms are used for cross-cousins.
Sudanese kinship
Siblings are distinguished from cousins and different terms are used each type of cousin (i.e. father's brother's children, father's sister's children, mother's sister's children and mother's brother's children).
Crow kinship
Iroquois kinship, with the addition that a number of relatives belonging to one's father's matrilineage are grouped together, ignoring generational differences, so that the same term is used for both one's father's sister and one's father's sister's daughter, etc.
Omaha kinship
Iroquois, with the addition that a number of relatives belonging to one's mother's patrilineage are grouped together, ignoring generational differences, so that the same term is used for both one's mother's brother and one's mother's brother's son, etc. -- 22:11, 6 February 2009‎ AnonMoos (talk)
Now incorporated into the article. AnonMoos (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. For 1st-ascending generation kinship terms, there's actually a four-fold distinction between "Generational" (which naturally goes together with "Hawaiian" terms on the sibling-cousin generation), "Lineal" (which naturally goes together with "Eskimo" terms on the sibling-cousin generation), "Bifurcate collateral" (which naturally goes together with "Sudanese" terms on the sibling-cousin generation), and "Bifurcate merging" (which naturally goes together with "Iroquois" or "Crow" or "Omaha" terms on the sibling-cousin generation). However, some languages show discrepancies between sibling-cousin generation terminology and parents'-generation terminology, in which case the sibling-cousin generation terminology is usually considered decisive in classifying the language... AnonMoos (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Dravidian (Tamil) Kinship Terms

The Dravidian notions of kinship are built into the language.It is difficult to understand this kinship without a knowledge of the actual terms employed.

amma, appa - mother, father
akka, anna - elder sister, elder brother
thangai, thambi - younger sister, younger brother
pattan, patti - grandpa, grandma

periyamma - mother's elder sister, or father's elder brother's wife
periyappa - father's elder brother, or mother's elder sister's nusband

chiththappa - father's younger brother, or mother's younger sister's husband
chiththi - mother's younger sister, or father's younger brother's wife

[Note: Children of periappa /periamma, and chiththi /chiththappa are NOT cousins but brothers and sisters "of the first remove ('onnu vittadu')." Marriage between them is strictly forbidden and considered incestuous. Only "cross" cousins are considered cousins.]

mama - mother's brother, or father's sister's husband
aththai - father's sister, or mother's brother's wife
aththan - son of aththai and mama, also general term for husband

[Note: The children of one's father's sisters (aththai) and mother's brothers (mama) (or "cross" cousins) are considered potential mates or "muraippasangal." "Murai" is the right to claim to a cross cousin. Marriage between such cousins is the norm. Such cousins are often "meant" for one another from birth.]

marumagan - for a man, his sister's son (as his brother's son is his son);for a woman, her brother's son (her sister's son being her son);also, general term for son-in-law

marumagal - for a man, his sister's daughter (as his brother's daughter is his daughter);for a woman, her brother's daughter (her sister's daughter being her daughter);also, general term for daughter-in-law

Some Tamil communities also practise uncle-niece marriages where the maternal uncle (mother's younger brother) may marry his niece (his elder sister's daughter). Hence, the term "muraimaman" for one's mother's younger brother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.226.84 (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point. "Dravidian kinship terminology" does not refer to Tamil practices. It refers to a system that is actually found all over the world. many Amazonian societies use Dravidian kinship terminology, in their own language of course (and they have different marriage practices than the Tamil do). Slrubenstein | Talk 22:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dravidian kinship terminology, again

If the so called Dravidian kinship is indeed so distinct to be recognized as the seventh type, why there is not a colourful scheme of it, together with schemes made for the six Morgan's kinships? Which is more, there is not a distinct Wikipedia article on Dravidian kinship. Ass for now, all that one can learn from Wikipedia is that it is based on an obscure modulo-2 rule (obscure, because neither illustrated with a scheme nor explained with the help of contrasting it with other kinship terminologies).

Information on Dravidian kinship is scattered and hard to find for a non-specialist. Which is more, there are articles, books etc., which do not even mention such a kinship type, treating the Tamil system as an example of the Iroquois terminology.

So, the question seems to be very simple: if Iroquois and Dravidian kinship systems are really so distinct, why not to point the difference in a clear way?

From what I have managed to find so far, I can suppose that the two systems are basically the same, contrary to what some persons say. There is no differences between Dravidian and Iroquois as long as we limit ourselves to siblings and first cousins. The difference seems to be of really less importance, and manifests itself only when analysing second cousins (so, at the level not used while examining all the other kinship systems). In other words, if we followed the criteria for the six Morgan's systems, there would not be a distinct Dravidian kinship at all (indeed, many sources on kinship systems do not mention any seventh type at all as it is mathematically impossible). It would be at most a sub-type of the Iroquois kinship.

If I am wrong, please correct me, and place a good scheme that would show the differences between Dravidian and all the other types of kinship. And in any case, add more information on Dravidian kinship if you can!

31.11.242.188 (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't mentioned in most anthropological introductions to kinship terminology, as far as I know. I may have "Explorations in Cultural Anthropology: Essays in Honor of George Peter Murdock" somewhere, or may be able to access it in the local university library. AnonMoos (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. There are also the Australian "section" systems (see Australian Aboriginal kinship), though I'm not sure if any of them have structural similarities to Dravidian. AnonMoos (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, please add a colourful scheme to show the differences between Iroquois and Dravidian. Or stop terming Dravidian the seventh system, and make it a subtype of Iroquois. A scheme is still needed in this case, though. 178.235.146.66 (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the Iroquois/Dravidian difference! Please make use of it in the article just because this is a hard-to-find piece of knowledge. The source: Hage - Dravidian Kinship Systems in Africa, http://lhomme.revues.org/21745
There is not a difference between Iroquois proper and Dravidian as long as we limit ourselves to first uncles and aunts and first cousins. This is why many scholars do include Dravidian in Iroquois (cf. Good - On the non-existence of Dravidian Kinship, http://www.socialpolicy.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/38428/WP06_GOOD_Kinship.pdf): “there is no such thing as the Dravidian kinship system”. I strongly insist on placing this statement in the article as this is a scholar view which is logically correct. No one should term Dravidian the seventh type - but at most a special subtype of Iroquois. I really suspect that the “inventor” of the so called Dravidian kinship just wanted his name to be placed in encyclopaedias. Once again, so called “Dravidian Kinship” is nothing but Iroquois Kinship in File:Kinship_Systems_vertical.svg
So, what is the difference between Iroquois proper and Dravidian kinships? The difference is between some second cousins, and perhaps second uncles and aunts.
In all Iroquois kinship systems (both those proper and Dravidian) children of father's brother and mother's sister (parallel cousins) are termed or at least treated as brothers and sisters (we may term them “second siblings” – while father’s sister’s and mother’s brother’s children are just cousins). In both subtypes brothers and sisters are also children of father’s brother and mother’s sister in wider sense (as father's brother is treated almost like father, and mother’s sister is almost like mother). Note that father’s mother’s sister is also treated like father’s mother, so her children are parallel cousins (almost brothers and sistes). And the same about mother’s father’s brother. In other words, FFBSC and MMZDC as well as FMZSC and MFBDC are like brothers and sisters (we may call them “third siblings”). For the same reason, FFBDC, MMZSC and also FMZDC and MFBSC are (second) (cross) cousins in both subtypes.
But there is a difference in treatment of other second cousins. In Iroquois each children of father’s male cousins and of mother’s female cousins are parallel (i.e. “third siblings”, treated like brothers and sisters, not like cousins). In other words: all children of male paternal relatives are brothers and sisters, and so are all children of female maternal relatives. “Male paternal relatives” means paternal uncles and paternal second uncles (male cousins of father). “Female maternal relatives” means maternal aunts and maternal second aunts (female cousins of mother). “Second” and “third” fathers are exclusively on father’s side, and “second/third mothers” are exclusively on mother’s side of the family. All progeny of this way defined parents are brothers and sisters (including parallel cousins). All the others are (cross) cousins.
In Dravidian subtype other rules are obeyed. Namely, parents’ (cross) cousins’ children of the opposite sex (of the parent’s cousin compared to the parent) are “third siblings”, just like parent’s second siblings’ (parallel cousins’) children of the same sex (of the cousin as the parent). All the others are (cross) “second cousins”.
Example: father’s father’s sister’s daughter’s children (FFZDC) are parallel cousins (“third siblings”) because father’s father’s sister’s daughter (FFZD) is not father’s second sister (parallel cousin) but rather father’s (cross) cousin. She has the opposite sex than father, so her children are parallel cousins (like brothers and sisters) of Ego.
And similarly, mother’s father’s sister’s daughter’s children (MFZDC) are (cross) cousins, not “third siblings”. It is so because mother’s father’s sister’s daughter (MFZD) is not treated like a sister (parallel cousin) but like a (cross) cousin. She is of the same sex as mother, so her children are cross cousins of Ego.
As stated in the article (it is a little obscure explanation as for me - because no one knows what “even” and “odd” means further), there is a simpler method of guessing if a cousin is parallel or cross, in Dravidian subtype. Number each male of 1st or 2nd generation as 1 and each female as 0. Then FFZDC will be 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 = 2 (we do not count C, as this is the 0th generation = the same as Ego). The even result means that FFZDC are parallel cousins. Similarly, MFZDC are 0 + 1 + 0 + 0 = 1, so cross cousins. The method works for first cousins too: MZC are parallel, as 0 + 0 = 0 (an even number). And FZC are (cross) cousins, as 1 + 0 = 1 (an odd number).
In the proper Iroquois such a calculation is incorrect: as stated above, paternal uncles’ and maternal aunts’ children are parallel cousins, the others are cross cousins. In the Dravidian subtype we must count male and female relatives on the way from Ego to the cousin to obtain the result.
https://lhomme.revues.org/docannexe/image/21745/img-1.jpg
178.235.146.25 (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links -- I've downloaded the PDF files, and will look at them later. I may have understood Dravidian kinship briefly at one point in the late 1980s or early 1990s, but I sure don't understand it now, so I've refrained from editing that part of the article so far... AnonMoos (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this might help: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Section-Logic-and-Cross-Parallel-Terminology-in-Canonical-Dravidian-Adapted-from-Tjon-Sie_fig1_227855133 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.133.94.176 (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kinship terminology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed type

The six types of kinship terminology may be prevalent but they are not the only ones. There also exist (existed?) mixed terminologies, and one of them was the one formerly used in Polish (with many traces preserved even now among some Poles). Here is the list of the main terms that are used as criteria of Morgan’s typology:

F – ojciec (formerly: ociec),

M – matka (formerly: mać),

FB – stryj,

MB – wuj,

FZ = MZ – ciotka (formerly: ciota),

B = FBS = FZS = MBS = MZS – brat,

Z = FBD = FZD = MBD = MZD – siostra.

FB and MB were (and sometimes still are) named with different terms like in Sudanese terminology - but one term for FZ and MZ (different than just “mother”) was (and still is) a characteristic feature of Eskimo terminology. Modern Polish is clearly Eskimo in this respect: wujek means both FB and MB (as well as FZH and MZH, exactly like “uncle” in English).

On the other hand, one term for brothers and cousins was exactly like in Hawaiian system! The term “cousin” (Modern Polish: kuzyn (male), kuzynka (female)) was unknown, and in a case of necessity brat rodzony (B), brat stryjeczny (FBS), brat wujeczny (MBS), brat cioteczny (FZS or MZS) etc., were (and sometimes still are) in use - but such two-words terms were (are) no way obligatory. Some time ago kuzyn, kuzynka were already known but they were only used for more distant relatives (cousins), not for children of uncles and aunts (and such a custom is still alive in some regions of the country). Modern literary Polish is Eskimo in this respect too: kuzyn (male cousin) and kuzynka (female cousin) are in common usage for all cousins (not removed, though).

So, what type was the Old Polish terminology kinship? Sudanese (FB stryj different than MB wuj), Eskimo (M matka different than “aunt” — but both FZ and MZ ciotka) or Hawaiian (all first cousins treated exactly as siblings)? Obviously none of them.

Other Old Polish kinship terms for curious ones: S – syn, D – córa, H – mąż (małżonek), W – żona, HB – dziewierz, WB – szurzy, HZ – zełwa, WZ – świeść, HBW – jątrew, WZH – paszenog, ZH – swak, BW – bratowa, BS – synowiec (for a man, i.e. uncle) or brataniec (for a woman, i.e. aunt), BD – synowica (for uncle) or bratanica (for aunt), ZS – siostrzeniec, ZD – siostrzenica, FF = MF – dziad, FM = MM – baba, SS = DS – wnuk, SD = DD – wnuka, HF – świekier (or: świekr), HM – świekra (older: świekrew), WF – teść (older: cieść), WM – teścia (older: ćcia), DH – zięć, SW - snecha (there were also some others, less common and older, like nieć for PGCS and nieściora for PGCD, used in 16th century, now completely forgotten and known only to specialists). Now only part of these terms have survived, some of them sometimes heard, others are slightly modified, yet others out of any use. Note no common terms for “nephew” and “niece”, even today. 178.235.146.66 (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

178.235.146.66 -- as explained in my comment of "21:16, 15 January 2017" above and on the image description page File:Kinship_Systems_vertical.svg , the six-fold classification really applies to kinship terms of the sibling/cousin generation. Sometimes there's a discrepancy between the kinship terms of the sibling/cousin generation and the terms of the 1st ascending generation, in which case there's a separate four-fold classification which applies to the 1st ascending generation. So earlier Polish as you've described it would be said to have Hawaiian terminology on the sibling/cousin generation, Lineal terminology for female relatives of the parental generation, and Bifurcate Collateral terminology for male relatives of the parental generation... AnonMoos (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos, if you were right, the classification of Old English kinterms as Sudanese is groundless and Brian Schwimmer follows his fantasies: https://umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/tutor/kinterms/oldenglish.html. We do not know cousin terms in OE, so according to your criteria we are not able to classify this system to any of Morgan's types. But as you can see, the practice is quite different: the eam/faedera difference (for uncles) as the modrige/fathu difference (for aunts) is enough to include the Old English system in the Sudanese kinship.
The Turkish kinship (https://umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/tutor/case_studies/turkish/turkterm.html) does not follow your criteria either. According to Schwimmer, all cousins are termed “... usaki”. Actually it should be uşağı... (I do not know why he made such an error) but these are compound, second terms. If we follow forms citated by him, we should call each cousin uşak, so the terminology would be of Eskimo type rather than Sudanese (according to your criteria again). It is quite another question whether cousins are really called uşaklar in Turkish (uşak means “servant” rather than “cousin”, and Schwimmer has cited incorrect terms for aunts and uncles either, e.g. hala is actually father’s sister and not mother’s sister, and amme, emme are not present in Turkich dictionaries at all: in real, FB is amca, MB is dayı, FZ is hala and MZ is teyze). But it all is less important for the question under discuss which is: is the cousin criterion really used in bibliography to place a given kinship system in one of the 6 Morgan’s types.
Of three examples of the Sudanese kinship cited by Schwimmer, only Latin would be correct, if you were right. And there would be an error in Sudanese kinship article as well. Note the BCS example: father’s brother is called differently than mother’s brother, exactly like in older Polish terminology (and like Proto-Slavic, I believe), with no reference to cousins’ names at all. So, in common practice even the one fact that FB ≠ MB is enough to include a given system in Sudanese type, regardless cousins’ names are, contrary to what you say. In other words, the aunt/uncle criterion is more important than the cousin criterion, and you are not right (in actual practice used in the bibliography of the subject, even if in theory your criterion were more correct - so it looks like your own idea, not like something commonly accepted, unfortunately). 178.235.146.25 (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The other terms (Lineal / Generational / Bifurcate Collateral / Bifurcate Merging) are usually called in when there's a discrepancy between ego-generation and parental-generation terms; if the ego-generation terms in Old English are unknown, then there can't be a discrepancy with parental-generation terms, so I don't know if he's wrong as such to call Old English "Sudanese" (though you're right that it would display more restraint and stick more closely to the evidence to call it "Bifurcate collateral").
I know basically nothing about Turkish, but you're only correct if the term usa-whatever means "cousin" and can stand alone as a separate word in that meaning. If usa-whatever means "child of" then Turkish as presented in the chart is indeed a Sudanese system... AnonMoos (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malay and Indonesian kinship terms

In introducing Morgan's classification the article reads:

For example, most kinship terminologies distinguish between sexes (the difference between a brother and a sister) and between generations (the difference between a child and a parent).

Ergo, the six-fold classification fails to account for kinship terminologies, such as those of Malay (and many other Malaysian and Indonesian societies), that in many contexts don't distinguish gender. How does anthropology describe or classify such a scheme?

I'll detail one example that I know quite well. In Malay, regardless of gender, one calls (i.e. describes and addresses):

  • one's child (offspring): anak
  • one's grandchild: cucu
  • one's great-grandchild: cicit
  • one's grandparent: nenek
  • one's great-grandparent: moyang

(However, although one describes one's first cousin (all four types) as anak sepupu, one addresses him or her as a sibling - see below).

Other principles are dominant. For example, as in the Filipino terminology, relative age is important - in Malay, one distinguishes older sibling (kakak) from younger sibling (adik). Also, even strangers are classificatory kin: to address a much older male in Malay, one addresses him as pak cik (for a female, mak cik) which effectively calls him "uncle" (and her "aunt"). Gender sometimes figures in kin terms, but mostly attributively e.g. anak lelaki is only used to describe (but not to address) one's son, when the distinction is relevant. The only obligatory recognition of gender is in terms for mother, father, aunt, uncle; and for some speakers (but not all), grandfather (datuk) is distinct from grandmother (nenek).

So which of Morgan's six kinship terminologies does this fall under - if any? yoyo (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yahya Abdal-Aziz -- the matter of gender distinctions is actually relatively trivial. Every language in the world can distinguish between male relatives and female relatives if necessary, with the use of added affixes or qualifying words (just as English can distinguish between "male cousin" and "female cousin"). Where languages differ is in how many kinship terms have an obligatory gender distinction. Just about every language in the world with a lineal, bifurcate collateral, or bifurcate merging kinship terminology system in the first ascending generation encodes obligatory gender in the words used for "father" and "mother" (only a few languages with a generational kinship terminology system in the first ascending generation use the same basic word for both father or mother). The statement in the article should not be taken as implying that all terms in all languages are include a gender specification. AnonMoos (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternating generations? reciprocal terms?

The article mentions self-reciprocal terms (two relatives calling one another "-ch’iné"), but other reciprocal terms (e.g. grandfather-granddaughter) are not mentioned. I have read that it is a general rule that kinship terms are reciprocal except for gender (i.e. anyone who calls a person "grandfather" is their grandson or granddaughter). If this is the case, could it be mentioned, please? I found the existing "Identification of alternating generations" section confusing, and would appreciate a clarification of what "alternating generations" and "(0, ±2, ±4, etc.)" mean. HLHJ (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the ego's generation is 0, ego's parents' generation is +1, ego's grandparents' generation is +2, ego's children's generation is -1, and ego's grandchildren's generation is -2, then alternating generations would group even numbers together (-2, 0, +2), and also group odd numbers together (-1, +1). AnonMoos (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image incorrect?

I happened to notice that the image here gives what I think is somewhat inaccurate information about Omaha cross-cousin terminology. (At least, it doesn't agree with my old anthropology textbook.) I believe that the father's sister's children are called "son" and "daughter" if Ego is female and "niece" and "nephew" if Ego is male. (This preserves reciprocity of terms.) If true, this would also apply to the Crow system. I'm no expert, so I may be wrong; it's also possible that the image was intentionally simplified and the Omaha page is more detailed. However, this image and variations on it are at the tops of Google search pages because of Wikipedia, so someone please look into this! --148.85.243.72 (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean File:Kinship Systems vertical.svg, there's a note on that image description page: "Note that in some versions of the Crow and Omaha systems, the relatives shown as "cousin" in the Crow and Omaha boxes of the chart are actually referred to as either "son/daughter" or "nephew/niece" (different terms are used by male ego vs. female ego)." Not all variations in all systems can be captured by a broad summary chart like this... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhs

Do Kazakhs have sudanese system? Kaiyr (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are the terms? AnonMoos (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kinship_terminology