Where did this come from? It sounds nasty to me (I am not a native speaker). But it seems correct. Can somebody explain this?
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
If you're talking about you and your spouse, it's not possible to be "married with" anyone; you can only be "married to" someone.
Hence there is no ambiguity in saying "married with three kids", as the "with" cannot be associated with "married".
Did you hear it or read it?
If you heard it, you may not have correctly heard the comma, which de-nastys to:
can safely be resolved to
at which point the context & the meaning become completely clear. I don't think the sentence sounds nasty, as nobody would ever want to imply what you are referring to.
Great! As a non-native English speaker from another place of the world, sometimes you just don't figure out some of the rules for translation-that should obey the side of the foreigner language and not your own. This case is a good example.
In Spanish you say: "Estoy casado con Tania".
In the question there's obviously a mistake which has its origin in a wrong translation. Clearly, the punctuation helps to give a satisfying connotation, but the problem isn't there.
"I'm married to three children" is what "Estoy casado con 3 niños" means in Spanish and is totally wrong, mainly because the word con means with most of the time. In this case, the translation should become not word by word but understanding the meaning of the phrase. Much of the time the Spanish speaking people fall into this kind of mistakes out of the logic that Spanish language has implicitly, but to learn English as well as other idioms, you most open your mind to break those language barriers.
In case of a translation, the fix for it would be to add the comma. Simple.
Anyway, this has to do with a wrong conception of the verbal form and how it is used.
Without seeing/hearing it in context, this statement appears to be a completely neutral statement of fact - no implications, nasty or otherwise.
It's possible that we're missing some important detail. You may need to provide more information about the context in which this phrase was used if we are to spot any hidden malice.
It means the speaker is married, and has three children (generally living with them as dependents).
Perhaps it isn't the best grammar. It certainly isn't the clearest way of putting it. However, it references the IRS (USA tax) code, in particular someone who is filing a joint return with a spouse and has other minor dependents. Several examples of this construction can be seen here. As such, any person who fills out a USA tax form is liable to know immediately what it means.
This terminology also was used in the name of a hit TV series.
protected by RegDwigнt♦ Aug 23 '11 at 22:04
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?