General Language Term Question

What is the linguistic term for the case in which a verb or a pair of like verbs show reciprocity in how they take subject versus object? In other words, more simply:

"X (verb)ed Y"
versus
"X be (verb)ed (--) / (preposition) Y"

such as:

-- I think what I'm asking for here is fundamentally a different construction than simply the active versus passive verb forms.

John speaks with Mary. | John is spoken with by Mary. | Mary is spoken with by John.

John likes Mary. | Mary is liked by John. | John is liked by Mary.

Aha. Okay, what I'm asking for isn't the active/passive distinction but the reciprocal distinction. What I'm asking about is, what is the grammatical term for a reciprocal pair usage, such as in:

John makes tea for Mary. (active, non-reciprocal) (case 1)
versus
John is made tea for by Mary. (passive, reciprocal of 1) (case 2)
and not
Mary is made tea for by John. (passive, non-reciprocal of 1) (case 3)

N.B. -- The "by" could be any other preposition, or perhaps empty/null-case. The distinction I'm going after is the verb versus its pair showing the...reciprocal or perhaps opposite...relationship between the subject and object of the verb.

Another example:

"to love and be loved by you"

"to see and be seen by someone"

"to hit and be hit with something/someone?" (I don't know, just looking for example cases.)

"to sit beside and be sitting beside" (Fishing for an example again.)

Is there some grammatical term for this, probably? Something other than a reciprocal?

In mathematical terms, what I'm looking for is the grammatical term for the inverse function, which is the function that undoes or reciprocates or reverses or complements its related, sibling function. Note: Complementary, not complimentary.

g(x) = f^(-1)(x); where g(x) <==> f(x); // g(x) and f(x) "flip" each other's functionality.

Thanks in advance.

Several of your examples aren't quite grammatical. Maybe that's why there ISN'T a name for them, because they're incorrect and should never be used?

I've colored them red in the quoted section. Most notable are the misapplications of "with" and "for".

Consider:

John speaks to Mary
John is spoken to by Mary

"John is spoken to" reverses the action. If John speaks to Mary, then Mary is spoken to by John. "X" and "Y" exchange places in the different sentence constructions.

ex. - John instructs Mary / Mary is instructed by John

To use "with" it would have to be:

John speaks with Mary
John is speaking with Mary
-- here, the reciprocal is true, Mary is speaking with John. But "with" is by definition more inclusive. And we're using adverb (~ing) instead of verb, because "be" is the verb of the sentence.

"Mary is instructed by John" is not a reciprocal interaction, Mary cannot be said, within that single sentence, to be instructing John.

The word "for" should be struck from the red sentences regarding tea for them to be properly grammatical. "For" indicates a unidirectional action, it cannot be made reciprocal no matter how you structure the sentence.

I don't remember the underlying rule, or the names for everything, that's Just The Way It Is.

Aren't all those cases simply the shift from active to passive?

How about chiasm?

"An example of chiasm is the familiar saying of Jesus: "The first shall be last and the last shall be first." The chiasm is: "first...last ; last...first," forming the pattern, AB B'A'. The structure can be extended to include many repeated elements in complex patterns, stretching over many verses. "

http://www.forananswer.org/Glossary.htm

chiasmus is what I've heard it called--chiasm can apply to several things, not just language. one of the examples most often bandied about is "quitters never win and winners never quit"

Xheralt--in part, you're right (gah...I can't believe I said that! ), but here's the irony to memorable and what is often considered great writing--you ready for this?--it's rarely perfectly grammatically correct. Shhh. Iz a sekrit. A lot of saying that use chiasmus are well known...and abused.

LOL, I expected some possible puzzlement, and I admit the examples are a bit forced or contrived, because I was writing off the top of my head. But they're grammatically correct enough.

English does something very non-Latinate and much more Germanic in how it uses and places prepositions, and in how prepositions may combine with a verb. That's done so extensively that a "verb + preposition" pattern may form a new meaning as an almost separate verb, a fixed expression, where "fixed" means the form does not change, even if it is irregular otherwise -- such as if a second preposition might follow it, which *can* happen and is grammatically / syntactically allowed.

I'll need to read more regarding chiasmus to see if that's indeed what I'm trying to convey. My hunch is that chiasmus, in the example you gave, seems to be X : Y :: Y : X, which is not quite what I'm attempting to name. Instead, I'm trying to name the class where W f(x) Z as Z g(x) W, where g(x) = f^(-1)(x).

"To love and be loved by you." -- This was the phrase that got me thinking about whether there is a grammatical term. John loves and is loved by Mary. That is, John loves Mary. John is loved by Mary. The subject and object there do not swap places. Rather, the verb form and added preposition together form a reciprocal or inverse function of the verb, in effect transposing the subject and object.

Yes, cases 2 and 3 in each of those examples in my earlier post are passive voice, while case 1 is active voice. What makes it something other than simply an acive/passive voice contrast is that the subject and object swap placesp.

OR, the case where, if you do not swap the subject and object, it means that the verb form plus any preposition, implies that a reciprocal action of the verb is performed, as in the paragraph beginning, "To love..." above.

-----

Xheralt, I think you misunderstood quite what I was getting at. I think I can illustrate that with your quote.

The first sentence is the simple present indicative. The second sentence is the simple present progressive of the indicative (is verb-ing).

Yes, swapping the subject and object there for the third sentence (Mary...John) versus the first sentence (John...Mary) is the reciprocal or inverse I'm getting at.

Oops, that's not correct, I'm sorry. The (~ing) form is the present participle of the root verb; "be" is not the root verb, it's an auxiliary or helper form. The present tense of "be" + (~ing) forms the present progressive mood of the indicative tense. (~ing) is not an adverb. You missed the terminology, is all.

(He dances, does dance, is dancing -- These are three moods (or modes) within the simple present indicative tense. Many European languages bundle these into a single form, the present indicative. "Do" + verb = the intensive or affirmative mood. "Be" + verb-ing = progressive.)

Right. However, the two sentences, "John instructs Mary. John is instructed by Mary." *do* show a reciprocal interaction, where he instructs her and she instructs him.

Again, it is not within the single sentence, but within the pair of sentences (or the triplet) that one finds the reciprocity. I agree, "for" is unidirectional. It is grammatically correct to say, "John makes tea for Mary." It is also grammatically correct to say, "Mary is made tea for by John." It may look and sound awkward, but it's correct, when casting it into the passive voice. Why anyone would ever put it into the passive voice, when the active voice is clearer, is a mystery as much to me as it is to you, though. LOL. -- I was searching for another example that illustrates the patterns for which I'm attempting to find the grammatical term.

Xheralt, and others, it isn't (at all) my intent to antagonize you, I'm just trying to clarify the proper terms and then to explain better the concept for which I'm trying to find the grammatical term.

Arcadia and Roseblade, thanks. Chiasm or chiasmus is similar to, but not quite, the relation I'm looking for.

I wouldn't call "love vs be loved" an inverse function. They are two distinct states, Mary doesn't necessarily need to love John, even if she is loved by John.
And in both cases it's still loving going on. Just in one case it's in the active voice and in the other in the passive. Which would have connotational implications, but I wouldn't classify it as anymore reciprocal than "John loves Mary." and "Mary loves John."

I don't think I'd use "John loves Mary. John is loved by Mary." in a text, because the immediate shift from active to passive doesn't sound good.

Are there any verbs that don't do your "reciprocativity" when simply changing active to passive? It still seems to me that it's not a reciprocal function of the verbs, but two different grammatical constructs which get contrasted with each other (apples and pears).

And I think your notation "W f(x) Z as Z g(x) W, where g(x) = f(-1)(x)" doesn't actually show what you describe afterwards.
W = John
Z = Mary
f = loves
g = f(-1) = is loved by
So your notation would become
"John loves Mary as Mary is loved by John"

Whereas you seem to want "W f(x) Z as W g(x) Z, where g(x) = f(-1)(x)"
"John loves Mary as John is loved by Mary"

I think "loves" is related to "is loved by" by a Laplace transformation, not an inverse.

BlueCatShip--may I call you Blue?

In desperation and the sense that I know exactly what you're talking about but can't nail down the name for it either, I'm posting this most wonderful list of literary terms. I it immensely. Its been more than useful, both for work and for jogging the memory for technical details one doesn't meet in the standard classroom on a regular basis.

My Favoritest Literary Terms Webpage Ever...so far

Happy Technicality-ing!

...*clutches head & tries to get the eyes to stop twirling about*...

Translated: I'm boggled by the intricacies of language being bandied about here.

Heheheh, y'all are great.

Sabina, I'm willing to say maybe there isn't much more than the active-passive distinction, with or without swapping the subject and object within the construction.

A LaPlace transformation? It has been too many years since Calc III in college. I should remember, but don't. I'll need to look that up in Wiki. (Actually, I still have my old Calculus textbooks (2) boxed up.)

Roseblade, thanks, I'll bookmark that link.

LOL, I'm Ben, btw. You're all welcome to call me Ben or Blue or BCS or... well, it's much better than some other terms. :whistle: innocently.