Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Watching an ad about a mobile network operator that recently changed it's brand name:
Tunisiana is ooredooo, and ooredoo is Tunisiana

is there a term for this kind of statement?
another example: One for all, and all for one

share|improve this question
1  
"Fair is foul, and foul is fair." (William Shakespeare, Macbeth I.i) –  Kris Apr 25 at 9:28
    
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Chiasmus is the classical term for examples of 'cross-over phrasing'.

How 'classical'

Nice to see you ... to see you, nice.

was is another matter.

share|improve this answer
    
+1 for Brucie :) –  oerkelens Apr 25 at 8:52
add comment

Mathematically, the statement "A is B and B is A" postulates an equivalence of A and B, i.e. that they can be used interchangeably (as opposed to one being a subset of the other).

share|improve this answer
    
But that doesn't hold for the second example :) –  oerkelens Apr 25 at 9:01
1  
Mathematically, the statement "A R B <=> B R A" defines merely the symmetry aspect of a possible equivalence relation on a set containing (general) elements A and B. The relation R can of course be 'equals' / 'is [the same as]'. "A is/equals B" is enough to specify an equivalence relation in this case. Reflexivity (eg, where the relation is 'equals', A = A) and transitivity (A = B and B = C => A = C) are also required properties. –  Edwin Ashworth Apr 25 at 9:18
    
@EdwinAshworth To me this type of sentence rather describes a reciprocity. You say A R B (=> ie. necessary condition) , but then also B R A (<= aka. satisfying condition). –  Arlaud Pierre Apr 25 at 12:18
    
@ Arlaud Pierre I'm sorry, which type of sentence? A symmetric relation, say ~, is one where if a ~ b then b ~ a for all a,b within the set / population. Obviously, 'is greater than' is not a symmetric relation (and hence not an equivalence relation), because a > b does not permit b > a. [But this is maths. I'm pointing out here that this answer is perhaps unhelpful. As does oerkelens. And 'reciprocity relation' has a different, defined meaning in calculus.] –  Edwin Ashworth Apr 25 at 15:02
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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