# Quid pro quo grammatical construction

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quid-pro-quo-grammatical-construction/970557>\
**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:** 1\
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**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")

</div>

> [@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.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quid-pro-quo-grammatical-construction/970557)._