« Avec le Maire, c’était souvent … c’était donnant-donnant. Il savait comment obtenir ce qu’il voulait des promoteurs, des banquiers, des notables d’Amberieu-en-Bugey. »
That's really interesting. I can see the logic behind misunderstanding--if I said this and you thought I said that then it is this for that, but in a different way than the English legal sense.
Qui pro quo: "Who in place of what" "A who instead of a what"; "A who instead of a where". In Classical Latin «Qui» generally is a relative pronoun although it can be used for an interrogative in place of «quis/quid», especially if the reply is supposed to be a masculine noun that represents an inanimate object. Qui est acer? Gladius est acer. Quod est durum? Scutum est durum. Quae est alta? Mons est alta.
French, Italian and Spanish are not derived from Classical Latin, rather Common Latin. The Latin from which they are derived is more like what you would read on the walls of Pompeii than even what you would read in a play of Plautus. If Ciciero gave his speeches as he wrote them, he would not have been so good a lawyer or orator; no one would have understood him.
In Common Latin, the rules become blurred. What would be strictly an interrogative in Classical Latin can serve any function in Common Latin. Thus qui pro quo instead of quis pro quo. Quis is the masculine/feminine of quid. The neuter has perished in French and Spanish but vestiges of it do persist in Italian. Romanian still has one.
You do see some cracks in Classical Latin, though. Quo originally was a shortened form of quo in loco; literally "in what place". The in loco came to be understood then the use of quo expanded beyond its restricted use, even in Classical Latin. That word does not persist in French, Italian, Spanish and Romanian. French uses the Latin ubi------>où, Cajun: ayoù which might be an archaism as it is derived from a redundant ad ubi. Redundancies were not unusual in Common Latin; Spanish *donde<----------*Latin de unde. The de is redundant as in Classical Latin, unde already means "from where". Common Latin, however, is not bound by that restrictive use. Similarly, Italian *dove <---------*Latin ad ubi. comparable to incorrect English "where at". Romanian simply retains the Classical and Common Latin unde.
I had a conversation about this with my boss recently (I’m a native English speaker, she’s a French woman) after I used quid pro quo in the English sense; in Romance languages it means a misunderstanding (it can also be written as qui pro quo, as many people have said).
It is a writing device, usually used in theatre or comedy, when people mistake each other for another person, or believe incorrect things about each other.
Like "I think my wife cheats on me because I heard noise made by the maid, so I start talking to her in undertones so she thinks I am cheating on her"
Quid pro quo is almost never used in french. On the other hand, "Un quiproquo" is fairly common in french, and this one means "A misunderstanding".
Since a lot of people don't know "Quid pro quo", it can lead people to think you said "Quiproquo" which leads to... a quiproquo!
In case you want outside France. It’s basically a « malentendu » (misunderstanding) when it’s one word quiproquo :
« quiproquo désigne une méprise qui vient du fait qu’on prend une chose ou une personne pour une autre. »
In Italy quid pro quo (not frequently used) has the same meaning than in US.
A misunderstanding is a qui pro quo.
No it doesn't.
IT uses "do ut des" in that case.
Exactly.
Thank you!
« Quid pro quo » is Latin, it means the same for everyone.
Edit: not to confuse with quiproquo which means misunderstanding in French
"quid pro quo" is never used in France French. We'd rather say something is "donnant-donnant".
How would you use donnant-donnant in a sentence?
« Avec le Maire, c’était souvent … c’était donnant-donnant. Il savait comment obtenir ce qu’il voulait des promoteurs, des banquiers, des notables d’Amberieu-en-Bugey. »
Merci, c'est un exemple très clair
Why not donner-prender?
Donner-prendre you mean? That's not a thing :-) "donnant-donnant" highlights that each party gives something to the other party.
Ohh thought it was like english give and take which is similar in meaning to i scratch your back you scratch my back.
Yes that's what it is :-)
I give, you give back. It's giving-giving. Donnant-donnant.
That's really interesting. I can see the logic behind misunderstanding--if I said this and you thought I said that then it is this for that, but in a different way than the English legal sense.
Qui pro quo: "Who in place of what" "A who instead of a what"; "A who instead of a where". In Classical Latin «Qui» generally is a relative pronoun although it can be used for an interrogative in place of «quis/quid», especially if the reply is supposed to be a masculine noun that represents an inanimate object. Qui est acer? Gladius est acer. Quod est durum? Scutum est durum. Quae est alta? Mons est alta.
French, Italian and Spanish are not derived from Classical Latin, rather Common Latin. The Latin from which they are derived is more like what you would read on the walls of Pompeii than even what you would read in a play of Plautus. If Ciciero gave his speeches as he wrote them, he would not have been so good a lawyer or orator; no one would have understood him.
In Common Latin, the rules become blurred. What would be strictly an interrogative in Classical Latin can serve any function in Common Latin. Thus qui pro quo instead of quis pro quo. Quis is the masculine/feminine of quid. The neuter has perished in French and Spanish but vestiges of it do persist in Italian. Romanian still has one.
You do see some cracks in Classical Latin, though. Quo originally was a shortened form of quo in loco; literally "in what place". The in loco came to be understood then the use of quo expanded beyond its restricted use, even in Classical Latin. That word does not persist in French, Italian, Spanish and Romanian. French uses the Latin ubi------>où, Cajun: ayoù which might be an archaism as it is derived from a redundant ad ubi. Redundancies were not unusual in Common Latin; Spanish *donde<----------*Latin de unde. The de is redundant as in Classical Latin, unde already means "from where". Common Latin, however, is not bound by that restrictive use. Similarly, Italian *dove <---------*Latin ad ubi. comparable to incorrect English "where at". Romanian simply retains the Classical and Common Latin unde.
When written with space it means the same, while all in one word means a misunderstanding
The lack of the letter “d” makes a difference as well
I had a conversation about this with my boss recently (I’m a native English speaker, she’s a French woman) after I used quid pro quo in the English sense; in Romance languages it means a misunderstanding (it can also be written as qui pro quo, as many people have said).
A misunderstanding between two or more people. I didn't know it were written that way tho
It’s basically never used
As Hannibal Leckter said to Clarris is silence of the lambs. Your turn now Clarrisssss..
Un malentendu = a misunderstanding
It’s Latin. It means whatever it meant in Latin. That’s not to say it is used in French, just that it has a meaning based on the language it is in.
We write it quiproquo.
It is a writing device, usually used in theatre or comedy, when people mistake each other for another person, or believe incorrect things about each other.
Like "I think my wife cheats on me because I heard noise made by the maid, so I start talking to her in undertones so she thinks I am cheating on her"
In French it only means misunderstanding
without the "d"
Yes, it's written and pronounced “quiproquo”
Quid pro quo exists too, with a different meaning