In days of yore, or the seedier parts of modern times, there may be a slave and a slave master. When discussing them;

His slave >> The slave belonging to him.
His master >> The master to whom he belongs.

So...

How does one refer to the two forms of belonging?

Vanishing-Up-The-Tailpipe-That-Belongs-To-Him of Dublin

What????

One is possessive as in "the slave belongs to the master" and the other is possessive as in "the master owns the slave". Its a directional thing; still referred to as "his" but with two utterly opposite meanings.

To discuss a different individual in a different setting; his home belongs to him, but his country does not belong to him.

G

From recollection, in Latin both would be 'possessive genitive', I'd say.

Although 'master' and 'slave' may be opposites in the sense of what the words suggest, the relationship, 'belonging', is the same in either direction as possession does not necessarily imply formal ownership. Isn't it only the sense of 'ownership' implicit in those particular words that appears to raise the problem rather than the grammar? 'His opponent' and 'his supporter' - also opposites but without any overtones of ownership - perhaps illustrate that there is no difference between the two possessive relationships.

That's my three-penn'orth, anyway.

Hmm.

Yes, in a strictly grammatical sense, I suppose so. "Yes" and "no" would both be the same type grammatically despite being logical opposites. And belonging versus belonging to are both on the spectrum of possession... just different values.

That said, it sort of feels wrong that nobody (other than me) has ever felt like using a term for the distinction.
G

Wot Chris said I think; possessive in the grammatical sense isn't the same as he actual meaning.