1

The "causative passive" form is very well documented. It's easily made possible because the a causative verb is a valid ichidan verb, and therefore compatible with the passive conjugation.

However, in the resources I have on-hand, there is nothing to suggest the inverse is commutative. To be specific, does a "passive causative" verb have a meaning equal to that of the "causative passive"?

Furthermore, is the "passive causative" conjugation ordering even used? Or is it unconventional?

Hypothesis

  1. ❌ The conjugations have a commutative property ("causative passive" is semantically identical to the "passive causative");
    • ❌ This hypothesis is disproved on the basis that conjugation ordering matters. Thank you, @naruto !
    • ❌ Furthermore, the final component/conjugation suffix is the main function of the verb. Thank you, @aguijonazo !
  2. ❌ The "causative passive" is euphonically preferred (「聞かせられる」 is easier to say and more pleasing to hear than 「聞かれらせる」 「聞かれさせる」);
    • Therefore the "passive causative" is unconventional and never used.
    • ❌ This hypothesis is disproved on the basis of being dependent on the first, disproven, hypothesis. This hypothesis doesn't have a leg to stand on! Thank you, @Jun Sato !

If my speculations hold true, then I'm seeking a citation to support these claims (which is actually the aim of this question).

Edit:

There was a typo (ら instead of さ), which confused some of the people who tried to help in the answers.

2
  • 2
    If a conjugation is not documented OR used by natives, it simply doesn't exist. Just because combining certain latin roots can theoretically make new "words" doesnt mean that those are english words. It simply wouldn't mean anything because it isn't English.
    – Shurim
    May 12 at 22:07
  • 3
    I am not up speed on how my language is gramatically analyzed and taught in English, but I can defintiely tell that 聞かれらせる is - before it's easy on the ear or not - absolutely wrong. So regardless of where you are coming from - Hypothesis (2) does not have a leg to stand on.
    – Jun Sato
    May 12 at 23:20
5

There is no "passive-causative form" as you suggest in Japanese. Japanese verb conjugations can be "stacked", but not all combinations are possible. There is a correct order you have to respect. If you want the causative-passive meaning described in your textbook, you must always use させられる, not られさせる.

  • つまらない音楽を聞かせられた。(or ~を聞かされた)
    I was made to listen to boring music. (i.e., They made me listen to boring music.)
  • 私は泣かせられた。(or 泣かされた)
    I was made to cry.

Sometimes, there are situations where you want to "make someone/something be in some passive state". Even in such cases, "passive-causative" られさせる is not a thing. Instead, you need to say ~れるようにする, ~れろと言う/命じる, etc.

  • 音楽が聞かれるようにした。
    I let the music be heard.
    (×聞かれさせた is incorrect)
  • 彼に殴られろと命じた。
    I told him that he must be beaten.
    (×殴られさせた is incorrect)
2
  • Thank you for explaining how a passive-causative verb might be formed! Upvoted your answer! May 13 at 14:01
  • Your answer was the quickest reply to concisely answer the question, and provide a grammatical alternative for the "passive-causative" (which I didn't realise was a different thing until you pointed it out!). I tagged it as the correct answer. May 13 at 14:20
4

Your first hypothesis simply doesn’t hold. If you thought it might, you may not understand how causative-passives work.

If such a thing exists at all, the passive-causative form of 聞く would be 聞かれさせる, not 聞かれらせる. (A passive form is also valid as an ichidan, or Group-2, verb, and a verb in that group takes -させる to form a causative.)

If 聞かれさせる means anything, its main function would be that of させる, its final component. It would be understood as causing some situation that in turn is described with a passive. Order matters.

I can think of two imaginary usages.

(*) XにYを聞かれさせる。

(*) XにYに聞かれさせる。

The situation to be caused would be described as Yを聞かれる in the first and Yに聞かれる in the second. Either way, X would not be an active agent in this situation. (If X is the one who hears Y in the first case, you would simply say XにYを聞かせる.)

That means X would also have to somehow “cause” that situation indirectly. It’s like doing so on behalf of the speaker in the above sentences.

Such ideas can be expressed as:

XにYを聞かれるようにさせる。
I will have/make X see to it that Y is heard.

XにYに聞かれるようにさせる。
I will have/make X see to it that it is heard by Y.

Now, why would you need passive-causatives?

4
  • "Your first hypothesis simply doesn’t hold. If you thought it might, you may not understand how causative-passives work." I accept criticism, but this is invalid. The first hypothesis is able to exist because the passive form is a valid ichidan verb, and ichidan verbs can be conjugated into the causative form. That's not a failure of understanding causative-passives; instead, that's a grammatical curiosity that emerges from unstated boundaries (unstated boundaries being: A+B≠B+A) May 13 at 13:51
  • Your explanation about 「聞かれさせる」 and how the final component is the main function, is excellent! Before this, I wasn't aware of this fact, which really is the TRUE contradiction to the first hypothesis. Thank you also for explaining with your examples too, I upvoted your answer! May 13 at 13:56
  • 2
    @JKVeganAbroad: I was not talking about form. I suspected you didn't understand the true meaning of the causative-passive if you thought the order of the two components might be swapped.
    – aguijonazo
    May 13 at 14:26
  • Ahhh, that makes sense. You were close though, it turns out that I didn't understand that "passive-causative" is its own grammatical structure which has a different meaning (it's kind of uncommon to say such things, like you said, "why would you need passive-causatives?"). May 13 at 14:30
3
  1. "The conjugations have a commutative property ("causative passive" is semantically identical to the "passive causative")

This would be categorically false. Can you throw me several examples you think it might work? (by commutative I assume it is meant like how addition is commutative, like 2+3=3+2, i.e. can flip orders)

  1. The "causative passive" is euphonically preferred (「聞かせられる」 is easier to say and more pleasing to hear than 「聞かれらせる」);

As I commented above, I can defintiely tell that 聞かれらせる is - before it's easy on the ear or not - absolutely wrong. So regardless of where you are coming from - Hypothesis (2) does not have a leg to stand on, since it is assuming both forms are valid but one is preferred. That is not the case.

To list the examples posted here:

聞かせられる: Forced to listen to (against will).

聞かれらせる: wrong, can't even guess what it wants to say.

聞かれさせる: almost there, what you really want is 聞かさせられる. (reference])

2
  • "like 2+3=3+2" Yes! That's exactly what I meant! May 13 at 13:45
  • 「聞かれさせる」Typo. Indeed, this was the intended example in my question, sorry for the trouble. May 13 at 13:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.