6

Obituaries often include lists with this grammatical structure:

John Doe is survived by his children, Steve Doe and his wife, June; Will Doe and his wife, Janet; Susan Richards and her husband, Walter...."

It seems to me that the above is incorrect because, despite phrases like "his wife" and "her husband," the wives and husbands still fall under the rubric of "his [John Doe’s] children." So my first question is, am I wrong about this?

According to obituary convention, you could write,

"his children, Steve (June) Doe, Will (Janet) Doe, and Susan (Walter) Richards."

However, many families do not like how this looks. Would "His children and their spouses" followed by their names be right? I have some doubts about this because, without the word "respectively," it’s potentially ambiguous.

This brings me to my second question: Other than using parentheses, what would be the correct way to write this list?

closed as primarily opinion-based by Jim, BladorthinTheGrey, curiousdannii, user66974, Hellion Dec 6 '16 at 14:51

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

4

I don't read obituaries, so I'm not quite sure of the structure, but I agree that the way you state it implies the spouses are his children as well.

My initial feeling is that I don't even think it's necessary to include spouses, but I would rewrite it as: John Doe is survived by his children, Steve Doe, married to June; Will Doe, married to Janet; and Susan Richards, married to Walter.

Or something like that.

Your second option, children and their spouses, makes more sense. I feel like the reader would assume his children are the ones mentioned first, but it is ambiguous.

How do the obituaries deal with grandchildren? Do they mention them?

0

Personally, I see nothing significantly wrong with your original suggestion, and it contains no ambiguity:

John Doe is survived by his children, Steve Doe and his wife, June; Will Doe and his wife, Janet; Susan Richards and her husband, Walter...."

His children are the first persons mentioned in each individual list item, so you can read it as:

John Doe is survived by his children:

  • Steve Doe (and his wife, June);
  • Will Doe (and his wife, Janet);
  • Susan Richards (and her husband, Walter);
  • ....

I'm not suggesting that you should include the brackets - I've put them in only to make it clear that the list is primarily a list of his children. In any case, the children's spouses are children-in-law.

I think the semi-colons after each child & partner are good and add clarity in separating the list items.

You could make any of the following changes:

  • omit surnames for male children;
  • omit commas before spouses' names, and optionally, insert commas after children's names.

That would give:

John Doe is survived by his children, Steve, and his wife June; Will, and his wife Janet; Susan Richards, and her husband Walter; ...."

I'm certainly not saying that either form is better than the other: they are just slightly different styles.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.