86608
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.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-12T16:14:50.230
86605
2021-05-13T16:45:29.697
2021-05-13T16:45:29.697
27424
27424
question
verbs conjugations passive-voice causation resources
Causative passive form vs. Passive causative form: Both are grammatically possible, but is there a citation to prefer one over the other?
>   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)

>   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」);
>

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]](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q10137159955))
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-12T23:37:35.350
86607
2021-05-13T05:28:38.233
2021-05-13T05:28:38.233
14444
14444
86605
answer
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)
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-13T00:01:03.727
86608
2021-05-13T00:06:26.030
2021-05-13T00:06:26.030
5010
5010
86605
answer
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?
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-13T01:22:25.950
86609
2021-05-13T01:22:25.950
43676
86605
answer