This paper is mainly based on two categories of Mongolian kinship terminology in the post-socialist era which I collected during my fieldwork. The first category consists of charts that were published after socialism was instituted to encourage Mongolians to remember kin terms. These were designed to be simple and easy to memorize, and for this reason we can call these "simplified" terms(compared to both the eighteenth and 1930s systems of kinship terminology). The second category illustrates kinship terminology that is currently in practice, and therefore is called "in-practice" kinship terminology. These two types of Mongolian kinship terms are complementary and, taken together, can generate an understanding of kinship terminology in the post-socialist era. Kinship terms for affinal kinfolk in the post-socialist Mongolia are thoroughly articulated in the "in-practice" system of kin terms, while in the "simplified" system kin terms for parents` siblings` spouses are not visible. One reason for this being true may be the common use of the "descriptive mode". Hence it often happens that spouses of parents` siblings are referred to as: abga ahiin ehner(wives of one`s father`s brothers), abga egchiin no¨ho¨r(husbands of one`s father`s sisters), nagats ahiin ehner(wives of one`s mother`s brothers), and nagats egchiin no¨ho¨r(husbands of one`s mother`s sisters). The "descriptive mode" of designating kinsmen is rather informal, but more formal vocabulary is also in use, especially by people of the older generation. A distinction between "simplified" and "in-practice" systems is made in the different usage of terms such as no¨ho¨r(husband) vs. hu¨rgen(brother-in-law) and ehner(wife) vs. bergen(sister-in-law). In both cases the former emphasizes the relationship between ego and his/her consanguineal kin(i.e., parents siblings), whereas the latter stresses the relationship between ego and his/her affinal kin(i.e., spouses of parents` siblings). In other words the former practice reflects how the referents are linked to the speaker. Similar practices and implications are also visible in the manner of reference to spouses of ego`s siblings. Since the "descriptive mode" adds core kin terms together to describe kinship, the wide use of the "descriptive mode" in the post-socialist period shows that peoples are now making a clear distinction between close relatives(oiriin to¨ro¨l) and extended relations(aglag u¨ye). In clarifying the social relationship by using the descriptive mode, the speaker is the one to establish this degree of closeness by his or her speech. This phenomenon suggests that kinship terminology has lost its ability to express fully the connections between people. Mongolians of the post-socialist era feel the need to define these connections in a more precise, detailed way, to map them out exactly by using descriptive terminology that makes all the intermediate links crystal clear. Descriptive terminology is also to accomplish this better than specific kinship nomenclature because the latter consists only of names that do not define the connections between people.