@ZippySqrl  
Well no, English logically has it right. Sister-in-Law is three words combined into a different word using hyphens, so the s goes on the end of the noun piece that is actually being pluralized, which is sister.
 
It’s “in-laws” that is technically wrong, but given that there’s no better place to put the s, it’s as good as it can get.

@AC97  
eh XD

@Background Pony #4866
 
Your edits are appreciated, lol.

ok i edit again XD
 

True they do make the law.

The Royal Canterlot Archives are also rumored to contain the sole surviving copy of the sensationalist “historian” Yellow Journal’s The Sun Goes Down, a ribald and frequently dismissed account of goings on among the ruling elite. A source of much fervor in it’s own time, the pages of the book are filled with strange, contentious, typically second hand accounts of depravity among the two sisters, including the truly bizarre allegation that they became their own in laws after accidentally marrying a darker, evil, nightmarish version of each other following a night of particularly heavy drinking.

@AC97  
kek

@ZippySqrl
 
Y’see, that’s a different headcanon, because “Celesia” isn’t related to either of them.

Also, this was basically already posted 5 years ago
 

@Goddess Erosia
 
Good analysis.

@Goddess Erosia  
😔

@ZippySqrl  
yeah basically OP isn’t at all that clever and this is just a bad headcanon shitpost

@Goddess Erosia  
Quite.  
It’s Unfortunate, as I initially found it quite humorous, as they are quite literally sisters in law, but not - in the grammatically correct yet dumb term - “sisters-in-law”.

@ZippySqrl  

 
OBJECTION!!!
 
The tag history does not list anyone adding the “headcanon” tag, which implies the uploader manually chose that tag when making this post. This suggests that actually the meaning is exactly as straight forward as we’re all assuming. This, combined with the testimony from the uploader’s description, forces me to REJECT your proposal. The OP does not appear to be as deep as you are suggesting.

This is true.

@Bexar Bandito  
Oh, according to google it actually is, but I’ve literally never heard it said like that, and whenever anyone refers to in-laws, the ‘s’, as I just displayed, goes at the end of “law”, so ‘x-in-laws’ sounds like the most appropriate for the plural. So that’s stupid and I disregard the English language’s poor form.

@ZippySqrl  
… but sisters-in-law is the gramatically correct plural form of sister-in-law. now i’m even more confused

..is literally everyone missing the joke?  
it says sisters-in-law, not sister-in-laws.
 
They are sisters, who dictate the law.

I mean, it’s possible.

Cadence: LIAR

Ummm… nope.

You are fake news OP

citation needed

Fake news!