# reciprocity vs. reciprocality



## Michael Zwingli

I would like feedback on the differences in sense or meaning, if there are any, between the words "reciprocity" and "reciprocality". That's all, and thank you in advance.

If "reciprocality" is just a restatement of "reciprocity", then why does it exist in the first place?


----------



## anthox

You're going to need to provide complete sentences for context. Personally, I've never heard the term "reciprocality."


----------



## Michael Zwingli

They both appear in Merriam-Webster online, and within Wiktionary as well. I do know that neither seem to derive directly from the Latin, but rather seem to have been created in English after the nominalizing suffix "-ity" became productive therein; there were no words: "reciprocitas" or "reciprocalitas" in Latin. Rather, in Latin, we only know of "reciprocus" meaning (of a movement) "back and forth".

Here are a couple of quotes that I found:

"The Arthurs stopped receiving social invitations from friends because of their lack of _reciprocity." _- from Black's Law Dictionary

"The king commands Gawain to rise, so the knight rises and kneels before his uncle. He then takes the weapon, while Arthur...gladly relinquishes it. Both giving and taking receive equal prominence here, both giver and taker occupy the reader's attention in a display of agentive _reciprocality_. In the world of chivalric romance, where knights' behavior is governed by a fixed code of action, such _reciprocality_ is particularly conspicuous..." - from The Epistemological Perspective of the Pearl-Poet by Piotr Spyra

I am thinking that the noun _reciprocality _might actually be a misnomer which has become (partially?) accepted pursuant to usage. Perhaps created from the adjective _reciprocal, _itself created from the noun _reciprocity_, which was nominalized from the Latin adjective _reciprocus_...


----------



## Michael Zwingli

The Latin suffix _-tās_ is added to an adjective (or sometimes a noun) to form an abstract third declension feminine noun indicating a state or condition.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

Oops, I accidentally hit post reply before I was finished typing.

Actually, the English _reciprocity_ seems to come from the French _réciprocité_ < French _réciproque_ _+‎ -ité_, and French _réciproque_ < Latin _reciprocus._ Perhaps it came across the channel with William? In any case, the English adjectival suffix _-al _comes directly from the similar Latin suffix _-alis_, which suffix was added to a noun or numeral to form an adjective of relationship to that noun. English _reciprocal_, then, seems to derived thusly: _reciprocity_ + _-al_, with _reciprocity_ having been unusually "cropped" to achieve _reciprocal _rather than _reciprocital_. The only alternative that I can see to this, is that English _reciprocal_ came from Latin_ reciprocus_ suffixed with English _-al_, but I rather doubt that. Once English had _reciprocal_, then, it is not too much of a stretch to imagine that somebody did this: _reciprocal +_ _-ity = reciprocality_, even though that word reduplicates the meaning of the word _reciprocity_, which was originally borrowed from the French???


----------



## bennymix

You are able to answer your own question.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

I am not so sure that I have the right answer, though...


----------



## PaulQ

From the OED:
*Reciprocality*:
Origin: Formed within English, by derivation. Etymons: reciprocal adj., -ity suffix.
Etymology: < reciprocal adj. + -ity suffix.
Compare slightly earlier reciprocalness1 n., and also later reciprocity2 n.
*Earliest recorded occurrence:
1653 *A. Warren 8 Reasons Categorical 6 Although the King might be within some stipulations, yet might he recede from their reciprocallity.

1*Reciprocalness*
The quality, state, or condition of being reciprocal; *reciprocity*.
*Origin: *Formed within English, by derivation. *Etymons*: reciprocal adj., -ness suffix.
*Etymology*: < reciprocal adj. + -ness suffix. Compare slightly later reciprocality n.
*Earliest recorded occurrence:
1657* F. Roberts Mysterium & Medulla Bibliorum ii. ii. 128 Calvin..Speaking of the Covenant..thus expresseth the reciprocalness, and consequently the Conditionality thereof, [etc.]

2*Reciprocity*, n. 1. The quality, state, or condition of being reciprocal; reciprocal action or relation, esp. reciprocation of cooperative or altruistic behaviour; an instance of this.
Origin: A borrowing from Latin, combined with an English element; modelled on a French lexical item. Etymons: Latin reciprocus , -ity suffix.
*Earliest recorded occurrence:
1753* Duke of Newcastle Let. to M. Michell 20 There would be no reciprocity, the King of Prussia don't agree to be bound by the Clauses, to which other Powers have, by their respective Treaties, signed.

In sense 2b originally after German †Reciprocität (1797 in the passage translated in quot. 1799; now Reziprozität.)

In sense 3 originally after French loi de réciprocité law of reciprocity ( A. M. Legendre Essai sur la théorie des nombres (1798) ii. vi. 214).


----------



## Michael Zwingli

Thank you, PaulQ, you have dispelled all doubt. Indeed, as I suspected, I was wrong about several aspects of this. I am quite surprised, though to learn that _reciprocality_ actually predates _reciprocity_ in English, since _reciprocity_ is much more often used today, even in the law. I have never even encountered _reciprocalness. _Fascinating.


----------



## PaulQ

Michael Zwingli said:


> you have dispelled all doubt.


Not me - the OED - I found it interesting, too.  

If you can obtain access to the on-line version (often through a university, library, etc.) then you have a valuable resource.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

Thank god for the manic lexicographers who produced the behemoth known as the OED!

In your opinion, are these three direct synonyms? In other words, are they able to be used interchangeably in sentences without any loss of meaning?


----------



## PaulQ

There seems to have been some confusion as the words entered the language. They are synonyms.

However, the case for only using *reciprocity* based on the frequency in the written language is strong: See
Google Ngrams for *Reciprocality,Reciprocalness,Reciprocity*, <- click!


----------



## Michael Zwingli

Thanks much!


----------



## sdgraham

Michael Zwingli said:


> In your opinion, are these three direct synonyms? In other words, are they able to be used interchangeably in sentences without any loss of meaning?


Probably, but any good editor will likely strike two of them


----------



## Michael Zwingli

I would tend at this juncture, to let sleeping _reciprocalness_ lie. _Reciprocality_, on the other hand, seems to present a strong argument for at least occasional usage. This, not only because it was first into the lexicon, but rather because of an etymological consideration which I can discern: I think that_ reciprocity_ would be the correct form of nominalization from a hypothetical English adjective _reciprous _(having the same meaning as _reciprocal_), but such a form did not come into English from Latin, undoubtedly because of the intermediaries between the languages. Instead, English has developed _reciprocal_ to render this meaning, which etymologically would be the same as an unknown Latin _reciprocalis_. The proper method for nominalizing this form of adjective is with the suffixation of Latin_-itas_/English_-ity_, and this does, indeed, yield _reciprocality_ in English! So, the earlier form would, in some ways, appear more correct.


----------



## PaulQ

Michael Zwingli said:


> So, the earlier form would, in some ways, appear more correct.


I've always suspected that "correct" is ungradeable. 

Julian Stuart (of WRF) has a quote which is something like: "When enough of them are wrong - they are right." This describes evolution's effect - the language evolves and is not bothered if it follows any so-called "rules" - it is the fittest which survive or _vox populi, vox dei_.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

To put it another way: given the fact that _-itas_/_-ity_ are used primarily to create abstract nouns from adjectives, _reciprocality _from _reciprocal_ would seem to have more etymological validity than _reciprocity _from _reciprocal_.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

Of course, maybe that's just my obsessive-compulsive "id" talking...


----------



## Michael Zwingli

PaulQ said:


> Julian Stuart (of WRF) has a quote which is something like: "When enough of them are wrong - they are right." This describes evolution's effect - the language evolves and is not bothered if it follows any so-called "rules" - it is the fittest which survive or _vox populi, vox dei_.


Yes, that is certainly the way that English has evolved over the centuries, and of course, it partially accounts for the large size of our lexicon. Yet, there is something to be said, in my opinion, for greater control over the development of a language, such as has historically existed for Spanish with the "Academia"; such an approach certainly helps to avoid etymological aberrations and  inconsistencies, both of which bother my "obsessive-compulsive 'id'".

*As pertains to usage of these terms *my thoughts follow: reciprocity accords more readily with the form of the word giving its meaning in most other western European (mostly Romance) languages, such as German r_eziprozität, _French _réciprocité, _Italian reciprocità, Spanish _reciprocidad_, Catalan _reciprocitat, _Portuguese _reciprocidade,_Romanian _reciprocitate._ This consideration tends to favor the general use of _reciprocity_ in English, but thinking more deeply, that still ignores the etymological consideration I have noted above. Most of the aforementioned languages have taken a direct descendant from Latin _reciprocus_. Italian, Spanish and Portuguese all have _reciproco_, Catalan has _recíproc,_ French has _réciproque, _and even Danish has _reciprok  _(all of which < Latin _reciprocus_), which are all translated into English as _reciprocal _(< a hypothetical Latin _reciprocalis_, which did not exist). Since, as I have noted above, _reciprocality _from _reciprocal_ would seem to have more etymological validity than _reciprocity _from _reciprocal_, an argument can be made for the usage in English of _reciprocality_, based upon the fact that, if _reciproco, réciproque, recíproc, _and_ reciprok_ may equal English _reciprocal_, then _reciprocità,_ _réciprocité, reciprocidad, reciprocitat, reciprocidade, _and r_eziprozität_ may just as faithfully equal English _reciprocality_.

As an afterthought, for _reciprocalis _to have existed in Latin, it would have to have been formed from _reciprocum_, the neuter nominalization of the adjective _reciprocus_, as: _reciproc(um)_ + _-alis_ = _reciprocalis_. If, for instance, Cicero had created _reciprocalis_, however, (as he did _moralis_ to translate Greek _ἠθικός_), then _reciprocalis_ would have had a much broader meaning in Latin than _reciprocus_ did. _Reciprocus_ really only applied to movements/motions, but suffixation with _-alis_ would have created an adjective of relationship with a broader meaning, which meaning would be much closer to our English _reciprocal_, as well as Spanish _reciproco_, etc., etc. So in that instance, English is somewhat more correct than the others, though certainly by accident.


----------

