Uploaded by Background Pony #8066
739x415 JPG 55 kBInterested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
Just like Twilight and Cadance.
Tags
+-SH safe2257190 +-SH edit179852 +-SH edited screencap94949 +-SH screencap301978 +-SH princess celestia116596 +-SH princess luna121279 +-SH alicorn333726 +-SH pony1688757 +-SH g42117942 +-SH magical mystery cure2951 +-SH clothes672992 +-SH coronation dress1030 +-SH crown32402 +-SH dress66152 +-SH female1897384 +-SH headcanon3243 +-SH insane troll logic162 +-SH jewelry123780 +-SH mare798381 +-SH op is a duck4972 +-SH op is on drugs274 +-SH op is wrong130 +-SH regalia39889 +-SH sister-in-law37 +-SH text95726
Source
not provided yet
Loading...
Loading...
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.
Edited
eh XD
Your edits are appreciated, lol.
Edited
kek
Y’see, that’s a different headcanon, because “Celesia” isn’t related to either of them.
Edited because: Fixed word choice
Good analysis.
😔
yeah basically OP isn’t at all that clever and this is just a bad headcanon shitpost
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”.
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.
Edited
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.
Edited
… but sisters-in-law is the gramatically correct plural form of sister-in-law. now i’m even more confused
it says sisters-in-law, not sister-in-laws.
They are sisters, who dictate the law.