# Quid pro quo grammatical construction **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 29, 2022, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quid-pro-quo-grammatical-construction/970557 "2022-08-29T19:20:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2022, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quid-pro-quo-grammatical-construction/970557/1 "2022-08-29T19:20:20Z")
Sidebar from the Trump/FBI thread > [@FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence (August 8, 2022)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-of-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-08-08-22/969329/1875): > > As an aside - my Latin is rusty, but isn’t the construction quid pro quo the other way around? The quid is payback for the quo. In other words, “once Trump has his quo, you’re never going to see your quid” ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2022, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quid-pro-quo-grammatical-construction/970557/2 "2022-08-29T19:29:17Z")
> [@FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence (August 8, 2022)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022/969329/1886): > > Wheat for sheep? > > Is the grammar clear? My experience is that it’s not. 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. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2022, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quid-pro-quo-grammatical-construction/970557/3 "2022-08-29T19:32:41Z")
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.” ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2022, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quid-pro-quo-grammatical-construction/970557/4 "2022-08-29T19:36:06Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > I’m confused by your explanation. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2022, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quid-pro-quo-grammatical-construction/970557/5 "2022-08-29T19:39:48Z")
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”. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2022, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quid-pro-quo-grammatical-construction/970557/6 "2022-08-29T19:40:34Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2022, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quid-pro-quo-grammatical-construction/970557/7 "2022-08-29T19:48:00Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > I’ve never considered it to be temporal. 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.