[Grammar] She enters into a wedlock with John.

[Aamir Tariq]

Normally, when we use "enter" we don't use the preposition "into" with it. Like, she entered the room, he entered the hall, etc. We don't say "she entered into the room" I don't know if it is unnatural to say it but "into" is often omitted in this case.

We also use enter when two people or two parties are signing a contract or an agreement. "They entered a contract" to mean they signed an agreement. I don't know if it is grammatical and natural to say "they entered into a contract", and "they entered into an agreement" or not.

When it comes to marriage contracts, prenuptial agreements. Can we say the followings?

"They entered into a marriage contract", or "they entered a marriage contract".

And what if we omit contract and just simply say marriage/wedlock etc, like

1. She entered into a marriage with John.
   
2. She entered into a wedlock with John.
   
3. She entered a marriage with john.
   
4. She entered a wedlock with John.

Also note that two of my examples has "into" in them".

Your expert opinion is highly appreciated.

Regards,
Aamir the Global Citizen

 

[Raymott]

I'd say that you "enter into" abstract things like marriages, contracts, arguments.
You "enter" physical things - houses, rooms.

Some can go either way. You can enter/enter into a contest, the housing market.

 

[Tdol]

She entered into a marriage with John.
She entered into a wedlock with John.
She entered a marriage with john.
She entered a wedlock with John.

None of these really work for me. She married John is a far more natural and correct way of saying this. The first is possible.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

None of these really work for me. She married John is a far more natural and correct way of saying this. The first is possible.

Yes, that's a MUCH better sentence.

And there's no such thing as "a wedlock"! They entered into wedlock.

For that matter, though "entered into a marriage" is grammatical, we wouldn't say it. We'd say "entered into marriage."

But again, as Tdol says, all those extra words just add bloat. She married John.

 

[Tdol]

For that matter, though "entered into a marriage" is grammatical, we wouldn't say it.

The contexts that I can think of where it might be used would be a marriage not for love, but for a different motive, and both parties were aware that this was not a love match.

 

[Aamir Tariq]

I think there is something I need to explain, since we all belong to different geographical regions with different cultures and different backgrounds so there are certain things that are specific to certain cultures and also religions.

Let me tell you about marriages in Muslim cultures. There are actually two things involved in a marriage. You may or may not be aware of it. Let me explain these two things.

1. Nika, It is a wedding contract. When a couple is getting married both the groom and the bride is asked about their consent if they are marrying each other by their own choice and not under any pressure and if they agree to the terms of the marriage. They are not only asked about verbally but they also have to sign a document that is called a marriage contract or "Nika-Nama". A copy of that document is retained by a Nika-Registrar, he also register the relevant details of the wedding in his register. And the record of that wedding is also held by the local council.

I don't know if the wedding contract is the same as the prenuptial agreement.

2. Rukhsati (Wedding Recessional):- After the Nikah ceremony (signing of the marriage contract), and all the other cultural rituals and banquet, when the bride departs with her hubby to live with him.

Now, the point that I am trying to make here is that sometimes Nikah (the signing of the marriage contract) may take place before the wedding that involves the wedding recessional. Nikah or signing of the wedding contract may take place during the engagement ceremony when the groom puts an engagement ring in the bride's finger and the wedding can take place a few months later or may be a year later.

Now, when we say somebody entered wedding contract it means he/she has signed the wedding contract only but the wedding recessional hasn't been taken place yet and the wedding will take place at some time in future. So it's only the wedding contract that has been signed.

 

[GoesStation]

The wedding contract you describe doesn't fit with any terms I know. A prenuptial agreement is a legal contract which some couples sign before they marry. It spells out various things both parties agree to -- usually involving what happens if the marriage fails and they get divorced. Such contracts are generally only used when wealthy people marry, if ever.

The only kind of wedding contract I've heard of until now is the ketubah, a religious contract signed by the bride and groom at a Jewish wedding. It has no legal force in the United States. I see that the Hebrew ketubah is a cognate for part of Katb el-Kitab which Wikipedia tells me is the Arabic word for the Urdu Nika-nama.

If you write about a Muslim wedding contract for an audience that may not be familiar with such things, you should use the Urdu or Arabic word for it (or both) and explain what it is. Although the Wikipedia article describes both the ketubah and the Katb el-Kitab as prenuptial agreements, I would use that term only in this brief explanation.

American states recognize marriages performed by all sorts of religious denominations but require a state-issued marriage license. Not every couple actually gets such a license, though.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

The contexts that I can think of where it might be used would be a marriage not for love, but for a different motive, and both parties were aware that this was not a love match.

True!

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I think there is something I need to explain, since we all belong to different geographical regions with different cultures and different backgrounds so there are certain things that are specific to certain cultures and also religions.

Let me tell you about marriages in Muslim cultures. There are actually two things involved in a marriage. You may or may not be aware of it. Let me explain these two things.

1. Nika, It is a wedding contract. When a couple is getting married both the groom and the bride are asked if they are marrying each other by their own choice and not under any pressure and if they agree to the terms of the marriage. They are not only asked about it verbally but they also have to sign a document that is called a marriage contract or "Nika-Nama". A copy of that document is retained by a Nika-Registrar. He also registers the relevant details of the wedding in his register. And the record of that wedding is also held by the local council. . . .

I see! In that case, the best thing might be to use "wedding" or "marriage" as an adjective. For example, you might say something like:

- She signed a wedding contract with John.
- She entered a marriage agreement with John.
- She and John signed a marriage agreement.
- She and John entered a marriage agreement together.

The word "wedlock" still wouldn't be right. It's not used as much as "marriage" and "wedding" are. Its use is much narrower.

 

[GoesStation]

The only way wedlock is used, with very rare exceptions, is in the phrase out of wedlock. This is the term for babies whose mothers are not married at the time of birth.

 

[Tdol]

And even that sounds very dated to me.

 

[Aamir Tariq]

And even that sounds very dated to me.

Which one?

 

[Aamir Tariq]

A prenuptial agreement is a legal contract which some couples sign before they marry. It spells out various things both parties agree to -- usually involving what happens if the marriage fails and they get divorced. Such contracts are generally only used when wealthy people marry, if ever.

GoesStation, first of all I am really thankful to you for such a descriptive and informative answer. A Nika-Nama also entails other details that I didn't mention above. Like as you said what happens if the marriage fails, yes Nika-Nama does have those terms like if a couple with children gets divorced, and it is determined by the court or by their mutual understanding that the children will live with their mother then the husband will be bound to pay a monthly stipend to his x-wife to be able to feed her children. And it is not only for the affluent people it is for everyone who marries in our culture.

 

[Aamir Tariq]

I see! In that case, the best thing might be to use "wedding" or "marriage" as an adjective. For example, you might say something like:

- She signed a wedding contract with John.
- She entered a marriage agreement with John.
- She and John signed a marriage agreement.
- She and John entered a marriage agreement together.

The word "wedlock" still wouldn't be right. It's not used as much as "marriage" and "wedding" are. Its use is much narrower.

Can we say?

- She signed a prenuptial agreement with John.
- She entered a prenuptial agreement with John.

 

[Tdol]

Which one?

The phrase out of wedlock

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

The only way wedlock is used, with very rare exceptions, is in the phrase out of wedlock. This is the term for babies whose mothers are not married at the time of birth.

Good point. That's about it. The only other way I can think of is during wedding ceremonies, where officiants sometimes use phrases like "the bond of holy wedlock."

 

[GoesStation]

Can we say?

- She signed a prenuptial agreement with John.
- She entered a prenuptial agreement with John.

Yes, either sentence is fine.

 

[GoesStation]

GoesStation, first of all I am really thankful to you for such a descriptive and informative answer. A Nika-Nama also entails other details that I didn't mention above. Like as you said what happens if the marriage fails, yes Nika-Nama does have those terms like if a couple with children gets divorced, and it is determined by the court or by their mutual understanding that the children will live with their mother then the husband will be bound to pay a monthly stipend to his x-wife to be able to feed her children. And it is not only for the affluent people it is for everyone who marries in our culture.

It sounds like a Nika-Nama is indeed a type of prenuptial agreement. Still, I would use the Urdu term in my text (unless its readers were expected to be familiar with it). After its first appearance, I'd write a short paragraph, using the term prenuptial agreement, explaining what it is.

That would be better because Western readers who know the term "prenuptial agreement" but not Nika-Nama will think of the Western-style legal agreement which is negotiated between the parties rather than being a cultural or religious standard.

 

[Aamir Tariq]

That would be better because Western readers who know the term "prenuptial agreement" but not Nika-Nama will think of the Western-style legal agreement which is negotiated between the parties rather than being a cultural or religious standard.

Yes, absolutely, as far as Nika-Nama is concerned it is not only religious but it also entails the negotiated terms that have been agreed upon by both the parties and it is also a legal contract, because if there arises any dispute between the two parties concerning their marriage the court will deliver the verdict based on the terms of Nika-Nama in the light of the constitution, so it's both legal and religious (two in one) kind of thing, So I think the best translation for it is "prenuptial agreement" because according to your description it is the same as Nika-Nama.

Secondly, I should use prenuptial agreement rather than marriage contract, because prenuptial agreement is more commonly used term in the English speaking world and marriage contract may sound unnatural, Am I right?

 

[GoesStation]

...I think the best translation for it is "prenuptial agreement" because according to your description it is the same as Nika-Nama.

Secondly, I should use prenuptial agreement rather than marriage contract, because prenuptial agreement is more commonly used term in the English speaking world and marriage contract may sound unnatural, Am I right?

I would not translate Nika-Nama. I'd use the Urdu term, explaining it the first time it appears. I'd explain is as a type of prenuptial agreement which is a normal (mandatory?) aspect of a Pakistani marriage.