Typically, there is an avoidance relationship between a man and his mother-in-law, usually between a woman and her father-in-law, and sometimes between any person and their same-sex parent-in-law.
Whats up with this sentence? it reads like it's been rewritten multiple times to be more accurate, but someone dropped the ball along the way. Maybe it is meant as an example of avoidance speech in modern English?
E.g. "Should I call you, or you me?" <== from "or [should] you [call] me"
So the sentence is actually:
* Typically there is an avoidance relationship between a man and his mother-in-law,
* usually [there is an avoidance relationship] between a woman and her father-in-law,
* and sometimes [there is an avoidance relationship] between any person and their same-sex parent-in-law.
The three parts are in parallel and connected by a comma/and list structure. It's confusing because the structuring and words create some ambiguity, though the sentence is valid overall.
The confusing-ness comes from a few factors: (1) the fact that commas are very commonly used to mark an appositive phrase, so the second part initially looks like it's an appositive (meaning that it elaborates on the first part); (2) ellipsis of this extent is not so common in modern writing, so less experienced readers will get confused; and (3) it isn't so common to put more than two full clauses in a comma/and list.
If I were trying to reduce confusing-ness, I would reduce the extent of ellipsis, break up the parts into two sentences, use semicolons, switch to plural 'relationships', or directly number the parts:
* There is typically an avoidance relationship between a man and his mother-in-law, and usually one between a woman and her father-in-law. Sometimes, there is one between any person and their same-sex parent-in-law.
* Avoidance relationships exist (1) typically between a man and his mother-in-law; (2) usually between a man and his mother-in-law; and (3) sometimes between a woman and her father-in-law.
* Avoidance relationships (1) typically exist between a man and his mother-in-law; (2) usually exist between a woman and her father-in-law; and (3) sometimes exist between any person and their same-sex parent-in-law.
Let's try it with a zip() function on two lists! This is better, right?
"There is an avoidance relationship between a man and his mother-in-law, a woman and her father-in-law, and any person and their same-sex parent, typically, usually, and sometimes, respectively."
You need to move the first "between" into the first bullet point, lest the second and third points have "between" twice.
Unrelated to the visual breakdown, there's also confusion (for me, at least) as to whether the first and second points have equal prominence, or if the second point should be of intermediate prominence; the word "usually" shouldn't be introduced except to slightly diminish, but I consider it to be a synonym of "typically"... are we to think the first is 90% and the second is 90%^2?
Oops, maybe I wasn't clear, sorry! This is what I was going for...
###
Typically, there is an avoidance relationship
- between a man and his mother-in-law
- usually between a woman and her father-in-law
- sometimes between any person and their same-sex parent-in-law
###
So the first point is simply typical, the second point is usually typical, and the third point is sometimes typical. The issue I have is not knowing whether the usually+typical construction is redundant or compounding.
Whats up with this sentence? it reads like it's been rewritten multiple times to be more accurate, but someone dropped the ball along the way. Maybe it is meant as an example of avoidance speech in modern English?