Sidebar from the Trump/FBI thread
But where does the ambiguity arise from in this case?
I would argue that the grammar is (pretty much) unambiguous, that the for grammatical construction means that wheat is to be given in return for sheep. I don’t think most people would usually read that grammatical construction as wheat for the purpose of getting sheep. I think the ambiguity lies not in the grammar, but in not knowing which of two people has each of the two things.
I’m confused by your explanation. Don’t both mean I give you wheat; you give me sheep?
“Wheat for sheep” on its own is ambiguous to me. It can mean either “Do you want to trade me wheat for sheep” or “I’ll give you wheat for sheep.”
I’m saying that the “for” means “in return for”, so the grammar and meaning of the “A for B” part is unambiguous. The ambiguity lies in who is the subject and indirect object.
I give you wheat in return for sheep.
You give me wheat in return for sheep.
But even if you feel that “for” = “for the purpose of getting” is a reasonable reading of “A for B” in English, the question is not about the English “for”. It’s about the Latin “pro”.
I’ve never considered it to be temporal.
Let’s say I’m a local police chief and you’re the mayor. I want some extra funding for a new squad car and you want your son’s DUI to be swept under the rug. A little quid pro quo, as they say.
Are you suggesting that the quid is whichever of those two actions happens first? Is it variable, then?
I deleted that part of my comment, I don’t think there’s necessarily a temporal sequence either.
But I do feel there’s asymmetry in the grammatical construction, whichever way around you interpret the for/pro.