Can somebody explain this? If you're talking about you and your spouse, it's not possible to be "married with " anyone; you can only be "married to " someone. Hence there is no ambiguity in saying "married with three kids", as the "with" cannot be associated with "married". I don't think the sentence sounds nasty, as nobody would ever want to imply what you are referring to.
As a non-native English speaker from another place of the world, sometimes you just don't figure out some of the rules for translation-that should obey the side of the foreigner language and not your own.
This case is a good example. In Spanish you say: The wrong translation is: The OK translation is: In the question there's obviously a mistake which has its origin in a wrong translation.
Clearly, the punctuation helps to give a satisfying connotation, but the problem isn't there. In this case, the translation should become not word by word but understanding the meaning of the phrase. Much of the time I am married and have one son Spanish speaking people fall into this kind of mistakes out of the logic that Spanish language has implicitly, but I am married and have one son learn English as well as other idioms, you most open your mind to break those language barriers.
Anyway, this has to do with a wrong conception of the verbal form and how it is used. My two cents, I'm new here and love idioms. I'm always learning something new and this is an excellent place for doing that. It's possible that we're missing some important detail.
You may need to provide more information about the context in which this phrase was used if we are to spot any hidden malice. It means the speaker is married, and has three children generally living with them as dependents.
Perhaps it isn't the best grammar. It certainly isn't the clearest way of putting it. However, it references the IRS USA tax code, in particular someone who is filing a joint return with a spouse and has other minor dependents.
Several examples of this construction can be seen here. As such, any person who fills out a USA tax form is liable to know immediately what it means. This terminology also was used in the name of a hit TV series. Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site the association bonus does not count.
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
Questions Tags Users Badges Unanswered. Lauren 6 Srinivas Reddy Thatiparthy 3 6 It comes from Al Bundy. Palavuzlar Nov 29 '10 at See my answer below.
Aug 23 '11 at Steve Melnikoff 5, 25 Prepositions are always the trickiest part when learning a language that has them. Master them and the rest is smooth sailing. In German, one is actually married with someone; "married to" would be ungrammatical. In Russian, I am married on my wife, while she is married behind me. The list goes on, but you get the idea. Little details like I am married and have one son are what make languages so fascinating to me - though also hard work.
And don't get me started on grammatical gender Did you hear it or read it? If you heard it, you may not have correctly heard the comma, which de-nastys to: I am married, with three kids. Benjol 3, 2 23 I read it,a quick google search shows it,too.
The comma is redundant. A native English speaker understands it without, and would not say it out loud with the pause that's implied by the comma.
Some writers and editors would insert a comma; others would not. It's a matter of personal style, not correctness. I am married with three kids. A comma, rather than a semi-colon, would be better, as "with three kids" is not a separate clause.