This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Explanation: I've actually never seen this term used (it may be more common in the U.K. than in the U.S.), but the Wiki definition seems logical enough, so you could use it --though keep in mind that (if my experience is any indication), it might need clarification if your intended audience is British rather than American.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 1 hr (2018-11-27 15:24:16 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
Now that I read it again, Piyush's terminology ("daughter's son/daughter") is unambiguous and works for all English dialect variants.
I think the problem here, if any, is not ambiguity. I can't see what else your maternal grandchild could be apart from your daughter's child, and I'm sure anyone would understand it correctly without difficulty. It's just a question of whether it's a legitimate expression, and specifically whether this use of "maternal" is legitimate. There's room for disagreement on that, and personally I'm really not sure whether I would use it or not.
OK, I missed the context in which you asked the question. I think we can agree that the wiktionary entry is nonsense. Free, online dictionaries tend to be unreliable. Real dictionaries are expensive because of the work and skill that goes into compiling and checking them.
I'm sorry, I don't seem to have made myself clear. I said:
'A grandfather can't be a mother and therefore can't be "maternal" in the sense that is presupposed in the wiktionary definition of "maternal grandchild".'
Let me repeat what I think that sense is. If, as wiktionary claims, a woman can have a maternal grandchild but a man can't, it can only be because ¡t is sees the grandparent in this relationship as "maternal" in the sense of being a mother. Otherwise, why can't it be a man? My point was that if we applied that idea to "maternal grandfather", it would mean that the grandfather was "maternal" in the sense of being a mother. That's nonsense, of course; it means on the maternal side or through the maternal line.
You asked: "But in that case how can you have a maternal grandfather? A grandfather can't be a mother and therefore can't be "maternal" in the sense that is presupposed in the wiktionary definition of "maternal grandchild"."
I think you have got confused between the meaning of "maternal grandfather" and the situation in the Asker's question. My maternal grandfather was my mother's father. "Maternal" in that context relates to my mother (who could only have had one father), and it doesn't imply that my grandfather was a hermaphrodite and able to bear children. While genetic engineering might confuse this situation, that's not yet a problem we need to deal with linguistically, at least not for people. Zoologists studying snails might have encountered that problem and found a linguistic solution.
I've just read your last comment and see you arrived at the same conclusion!
If the expression "maternal grandchild" is legitimate at all, it can only be so by taking "maternal" to mean "through the maternal line". In which case "maternal" has to refer to the grandchild's mother. So if you can apply it to a grandmother you can also apply it to a grandfather. Either both or neither.
As Barbara says, it would be much easier if we had an adjective related to "daughter". But since we don't, we are left without a neat way or referring to this relationship, unless we are prepared to stretch a point and accept this use of "maternal". I think it's worth it. It's no more illogical than plenty of other expressions. "Maternal grandchild" is unambiguous and useful. I think it's acceptable.
Yes, I think it (i.e. "matrilineal grandchild") would, BUT I'd avoid using it for a legal document about inheritance, just in case it caused confusion and trouble. It would be much safer to spell out the relationship e.g. I, John Smith, wish to leave all my property to the sons of my daughter, Name of Daughter OR John Smith wishes to leave all his property to the sons of his daughter, Name of Daughter. That would also safeguard against any other offspring appearing and claiming that John Smith was their mother's father.
The term "matrilineal grandchild" is much better suited to talking about inheritance in a historical or sociological context.
Charles, I have the same misgivings about the Wiktionary entry. It just doesn't make sense to me. The context involves inheritance, as it describes a man who wanted to leave an inheritance to the sons of his daughter.
I think that the reason this is so awkward is because societies tend to have rules of inheritance that follow the maternal or paternal line. So patrilineal inheritance would be from a man to his son and to the son's son and matrilineal inheritance would be from a woman to her daughter and to the daughter's daughter. So, in terms of inheritance, the line wouldn't generally pass from a man to his daughter to her child. For example, in Jewish society, where Jewishness is defined matrineally (in spite of it being a traditionally patriarchal society), a Jewish man's daughter would only be Jewish if her mother was also Jewish, while a Jewish woman's son would be Jewish irrespective of whether the father was Jewish.
"Matrilineal grandson" would work if used in the context of inheritance, but not for simply describing a family relationship.
The real problem is that we have ascendant relationships described by the adjectives "maternal" or "paternal" but don't have similar adjectives (derived from the nouns "son" and "daughter") for descendant relationships.
The only dictionary definitions I can find online are wiktionary and others derived from it. Maternal and paternal grandchild are not defined in any of the standard dictionaries. We have no way of knowing who wrote the wiktionary entry, whether it is one person's view or has been endorsed by an editiorial committee, how well qualified any of those people are, whether the definition is based on research, knowledge or personal foible. On its own, it is strictly valueless.
It's not logical. Why is it that only a woman can have a maternal grandchild? Presumably because only a woman can be a mother and the word maternal can only be applied to a woman. But in that case how can you have a maternal grandfather? A grandfather can't be a mother and therefore can't be "maternal" in the sense that is presupposed in the wiktionary definition of "maternal grandchild".
Many thanks for your thoughts and detailed responses. They are very helpful. It just occurred to me that "matrilineal" might be a more appropriate word. A Google search yields good (relevant) results for "matrilineal grandson." Further insights are appreciated.
I don't know the answer offhand. But if the wiktionary definition is correct, only a woman can have a maternal grandchild (and conversely only a man can have a paternal grandchild). So "his maternal grandchild" should be meaningless. And yet it is used. The mother of Cyrus the Great of Persia was Mandane of Media, who was the daughter of Astyages, King of Media. So obviously Astyages was Cyrus's maternal grandfather. But in many places Cyrus is referred to as Astyages's maternal grandson, and by scholarly writers: https://www.google.com/search?q="Astyages" "cyrus" "maternal...
So it would seem that you can say that if A is B's maternal grandfather, B is A's maternal grandchild (and similarly, mutatis mutandis, for paternal grandmother/grandchild).
There is something odd about "maternal grandchild"; one's maternal grandfather is the father of one's mother, so the word "maternal" seems reasonable, but one's maternal grandchild is the child of one's daughter, not one's mother, so "maternal" applies, as it were, to the object rather than the subject of the expression. But it's not ambiguous, so why not?
The male/female kinship terms for this relationship between (both) grandparents and grandchildren in Hindi are naati/naatin which are explained in the Oxford Hindi-English Dictionary as "daughter's son, grandson" and "daughter's daughter, granddaughter".
I'd go with "daughter's child" for both maternal grandparents.
George is the father of a woman named Sally, who has a son named John. George is thus John's maternal grandfather. My question is whether John can be considered the maternal grandson of George.
If not, then what term should I more properly use?
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
1 hr confidence: peer agreement (net): +2
child of a woman's daughter
Explanation: I've actually never seen this term used (it may be more common in the U.K. than in the U.S.), but the Wiki definition seems logical enough, so you could use it --though keep in mind that (if my experience is any indication), it might need clarification if your intended audience is British rather than American.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 1 hr (2018-11-27 15:24:16 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
Now that I read it again, Piyush's terminology ("daughter's son/daughter") is unambiguous and works for all English dialect variants.
Christopher Crockett Local time: 19:46 Specializes in field Native speaker of: English PRO pts in category: 4
Grading comment
Selected automatically based on peer agreement.
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs
(or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
peer agreement (net): +2