Many people are scratching their heads after learning that Trump asked Zelensky
to scratch his back in return of him scratching his ... "
Stephen Colbert
***
We take care of you and you
take of us
Quid pro quo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Antichristus,[1] a woodcut by Lucas Cranach the Elder, of the pope using the temporal power to grant authority to a ruler contributing generously to the Catholic Church
Quid pro quo ("something for something" in Latin)[2] is a Latin phrase used in English to mean an exchange of goods or services, in which one transfer is contingent upon the other; "a favour for a favour". Phrases with similar meanings include: "give and take", "tit for tat", and "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours" and "one hand washes the other". Other languages use other phrases for the same purpose.
Origins
The Latin phrase quid pro quo originally implied that something had been substituted, as in this instead of that. Early usage by English speakers followed the original Latin meaning, with occurrences in the 1530s where the term referred to either intentionally or unintentionally substituting one medicine for another. This may also have extended to a fraudulent substitution of useful medicines for an ingenuine article. By the end of the same century, quid pro quo evolved into a more current use to describe equivalent exchanges.[3]
In 1654, the expression quid pro quo was used to generally refer to something done for personal gain or with the expectation of reciprocity in the text The Reign of King Charles: An History Disposed into Annalls, with a somewhat positive connotation. It refers to the covenant with Christ as something "that prove not a nudum pactum, a naked contract, without quid pro quo." Believers in Christ have to do their part in return, namely "foresake the devil and all his works". [4]
Quid pro quo would go on to be used, by English speakers in legal and diplomatic contexts, as an exchange of equally valued goods or services and continues to be today.[5]
The Latin phrase corresponding to the usage of quid pro quo in English is do ut des (Latin for "I give, so that you may give").[6] Other languages continue to use do ut des for this purpose, while quid pro quo (or its equivalent qui pro quo, as widely used in Italian, French and Spanish) still keeps its original meaning of something being unwillingly mistaken, or erroneously told or understood, instead something else.
Legal meanings
Common law
In common law, quid pro quo indicates that an item or a service has been traded in return for something of value, usually when the propriety or equity of the transaction is in question. A contract must involve consideration: that is, the exchange of something of value for something else of value. For example, when buying an item of clothing or a gallon of milk, a pre-determined amount of money is exchanged for the product the customer is purchasing; therefore, they have received something but have given up something of equal value in return.
United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, the one-sidedness of a contract is covered by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and various revisions and amendments to it; a clause can be held void or the entire contract void if it is deemed unfair (that is to say, one-sided and not a quid pro quo); however this is a civil law and not a common law matter.
Political donors must be resident in the UK. There are fixed limits to how much they may donate (Ј5000 in any single donation), and it must be recorded in the House of Commons Register of Members' Interests or at the House of Commons Library; the quid pro quo is strictly not allowed, that a donor can by his donation have some personal gain. This is overseen by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. There are also prohibitions on donations being given in the six weeks before the election for which it is being campaigned.[citation needed] It is also illegal for donors to support party political broadcasts, which are tightly regulated, free to air, and scheduled and allotted to the various parties according to a formula agreed by Parliament and enacted with the Communications Act 2003.
United States
In the United States, if the exchange appears excessively one sided, courts in some jurisdictions may question whether a quid pro quo did actually exist and the contract may be held void. In cases of "Quid Pro Quo" business contracts, the term takes on a negative connotation because major corporations may cross ethical boundaries in order to enter into these very valuable, mutually beneficial, agreements with other major big businesses. In these deals, large sums of money are often at play and can consequently lead to promises of exclusive partnerships indefinitely or promises of distortion of economic reports, for example.[7][8]
In the U.S., lobbyists are legally entitled to support candidates that hold positions with which the donors agree, or which will benefit the donors. Such conduct becomes bribery only when there is an identifiable exchange between the contribution and official acts, previous or subsequent, and the term quid pro quo denotes such an exchange.[9]
Sexual harassment
In United States labor law, workplace sexual harassment can take two forms; either "Quid pro quo" harassment or hostile work environment harassment.[10] "Quid pro quo" harassment takes place when a supervisor requires sex, sexual favors, or sexual contact from an employee/job candidate as a condition of their employment. Only supervisors who have the authority to make tangible employment actions (i.e. hire, fire, promote, etc.), can commit "Quid pro quo" harassment.[11] The supervising harasser must have "immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee.”[12] The power dynamic between a supervisor and subordinate/job candidate is such that a supervisor could use their position of authority to extract sexual relations based on the subordinate/job candidate's need for employment. Co-workers and non-decision making supervisors cannot engage in "Quid pro quo" harassment with other employees, but an employer could potentially be liable for the behavior of these employees under a hostile work environment claim. The harassing employee's status as a supervisor is significant because if the individual is found to be a supervisor then the employing company can be held vicariously liable for the actions of that supervisor.[13] Under Agency law, the employer is held responsible for the actions of the supervisor because they were in a position of power within the company at the time of the harassment.
To establish a prima facie case of "Quid pro quo" harassment, the plaintiff must prove that they were subjected to "unwelcome sexual conduct", that submission to such conduct was explicitly or implicitly a term of their employment, and submission to or rejection of this conduct was used as a basis for an employment decision,[14] as follows:
Unwelcome Sexual Conduct: A court will look at the employee's conduct to determine whether the supervisor's sexual advances were unwelcome. In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, the Court opined that voluntary sex between an employee and supervisor does not establish proof that a supervisor's sexual advances were welcome. The Court also stated that evidence of the subordinate employee's provocative dress and publicly expressed sexual fantasies can be introduced as evidence if relevant.[15][verification needed]
Term of Employment: A term or condition of employment means that the subordinate/job candidate must acquiesce to the sexual advances of the supervisor in order to maintain/be hired for the job. In essence, the sexual harassment becomes a part of their job. For example, a supervisor promises an employee a raise if they go out on a date with them, or tells an employee they will be fired if they doesn't sleep with them.[16]
Tangible Employment Action: A tangible employment action must take place as a result of the employee's submission or refusal of supervisor's advances. In Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, the Court stated that tangible employment action amounted to “a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.” It is important to note that only supervisors can make tangible employment actions, since they have the company's authority to do so. The Court also held that unfulfilled threats by a supervisor of an adverse employment decision are not sufficient to establish a "Quid pro quo," but were relevant for the purposes of a Hostile work environment claim.[17] Additionally, The Supreme Court has held that Constructive dismissal can count as a tangible employment action (thus allowing a quid pro quo sexual harassment claim) if the actions taken by a supervisor created a situation where a "reasonable person ... would have felt compelled to resign."[18]
Once the plaintiff has established these three factors, the employer can not assert an affirmative defense (such as the employer had a sexual harassment policy in place to prevent and properly respond to issues of sexual harassment), but can only dispute whether the unwelcome conduct did not in fact take place, the employee was not a supervisor, and that there was no tangible employment action involved.
Although these terms are popular among lawyers and scholars, neither "hostile work environment" nor "quid pro quo" are found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, and religion. The Supreme Court noted in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth that these terms are useful in differentiating between cases where threats of harassment are "carried out and those where they are not or absent altogether," but otherwise these terms serve a limited purpose.[19] Therefore, it is important to remember that sexual harassment can take place by a supervisor, and an employer can be potentially liable, even if that supervisor's behavior does not fall within the criteria of a "Quid pro quo" harassment claim.
Donald Trump Impeachment Inquiry
Main article: Trump–Ukraine scandal
Quid pro quo has been frequently mentioned during the impeachment inquiry into U.S. president Donald Trump, in reference to his alleged request for an investigation of Hunter Biden as a precondition for the delivery of congressionally authorized military aid during a call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky.[20]
Other meanings
Quid pro quo may sometimes be used to define a misunderstanding or blunder made by the substituting of one thing for another, particularly in the context of the transcribing of a text.[21] In proofreading, an error made by the proofer to indicate to use the original is usually marked with the Latin word stet ("let it stand"), not with "QPQ".
The Vocabolario Treccani (an authoritative dictionary published by the Encyclopedia Treccani), under the entry "qui pro quo", states that the latter expression probably derives from the Latin used in late medieval pharmaceutical compilations.[22] This can be clearly seen from the work appearing precisely under this title, "Tractatus quid pro quo," (Treatise on what substitutes for what) in the medical collection headed up by Mesue cum expositione Mondini super Canones universales... (Venice: per Joannem & Gregorium de gregorijs fratres, 1497), folios 334r-335r. Some examples of what could be used in place of what in this list are: "Pro uva passa dactili" (in place of raisins, [use] dates); "Pro mirto sumac" (in place of myrtle, [use] sumac); "Pro fenugreco semen lini" (in place of fenugreek, [use] flaxseed), etc. This list was an essential resource in the medieval apothecary, especially for occasions when certain essential medicinal substances were not available.
Satirist Ambrose Bierce defined political influence as "a visionary quo given in exchange for a substantial quid",[23] making a pun on quid as a form of currency.[24]
Quid is slang for pounds, the British currency, originating on this expression as in: if you want the quo you'll need to give them some quid, which explains the plural without s, as in I gave them five hundred quid.
See also
Look up quid pro quo in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Barter
Eye for an eye
List of Latin phrases
Offset agreement
Pay to play
Reciprocity
Tit for tat
***
Quid pro quo
Quid pro quo (lat. f;r „dies f;r das“) ist ein Rechtsgrundsatz und ;konomisches Prinzip, nach dem eine Person, die etwas gibt, daf;r eine angemessene Gegenleistung erhalten soll. Vergleichbar ist es mit den ebenfalls lateinischen Sprichw;rtern manus manum lavat („Eine Hand w;scht die andere“) und do ut des („Ich gebe, damit Du gibst“).
Verschiedene Verwendungen
Quid pro quo wird in der Soziologie und der Spieltheorie als Erkl;rungsansatz herangezogen, um kooperatives Verhalten bei Egoisten zu erkl;ren (vgl. Homo oeconomicus).
Quidproquo (quid pro quo?, w;rtlich „Was f;r wen?“) bedeutet auch das versehentliche Vertauschen zweier Dinge und Quiproquo („Wer f;r wen?“) die Verwechslung zweier Personen.
Quid pro quo wurde ebenfalls in der Pharmazie[1] als Terminus verwendet, um die M;glichkeit des Apothekers zum Ausdruck zu bringen, gewisse Komponenten einer Zubereitung durch andere zu ersetzen, zu substituieren. Eine solche Substitution war bereits im Mittelalter bekannt und im medizinischen Schrifttum – etwa im Circa instans – wurden entsprechende Ersatzmittel auch publiziert.[2][3][4]
Trivia
Quid pro quo wurde ein am 24. Juni 2016 erschienenes Album der Mittelalter-Rock-Band In Extremo betitelt.
Quid pro quo ist in dem Film Das Schweigen der L;mmer (1991) die Bedingung, die Hannibal Lecter in den Gespr;chen mit der angehenden FBI-Agentin Clarice Starling stellt, um ihr bei der Aufkl;rung einer Mordserie zu helfen.
Siehe auch
Latein im Recht
Goldene Regel
Auge um Auge, Zahn um Zahn
Zug um Zug
Zug um Zug
zuegig
abwechselnd; auf Gegenseitigkeit; schrittweise
"Sie nahmen die Verhandlungen wieder auf und kamen Zug um Zug zu einer Einigung"
Tit for Tat
***
You're basically dealing with wordplay, and the thing about wordplay is that it is nearly impossible to translate, even between languages that are as closely related as German and English are.
"Zug" has many different meanings, not just "train" (a bit like the English word "set", which -- if you look it up in a dictionary -- has dozens of meanings); one of its other meanings is "move" in the sense of a game like chess. The word "Zugzwang" comes from chess, for example: it literally translates as "move compulsion", and describes a situation where any move you can make will weaken your position, but the rules of chess state that you must make a move.
So in German, "Zug um Zug" can mean "train by train"; but as an idiom, it means "move by move". In a legal context, for example, it describes a situation where a transaction occurs not instantaneously, but bit by bit, with each side waiting for the other to fulfil part of their obligation.
The thing is that while in German, "Zug um Zug" is a clever piece of wordplay that uses a well-known idiom to sum up the fact that it is a game, and that it involves trains, there is no way of doing that in English -- at least not with a direct word-for-word translation. "Train by train" just doesn't do it: it simply sounds lame. The translators would have looked for a well-known phrase that might describe the game well, and is -- above all -- memorable.
They would have done... had the game originally been made in German. In fact, it was devised by a Brit and published in English by an American company, and then translated in German. So in fact, the question is why was it translated into "Zug um Zug"?
"Ticket to Ride" was the title of a well-known Beatles hit, which is why it was used as the name of the game. And although the Beatles did sing some of their songs in German, Ticket to Ride was not one of them: generally, pop songs are sung in the language they were originally written and recorded in. So there is no German title for the song, and a direct translation, "Fahrschein zum Fahren," sounds as lame in German as "Ticket to Ride" does in English.
TL;DR: When translating the name of something like a game, translators will try to come up with something that sounds good and is memorable, even if it's not a literal translation of the original.
;;
level 1
CR1986
3 points· 4 years ago
German here. The phrase literally translates to "turn after turn" or "one step after another" ( if that makes much sense ) because - as someone else pointed out - "Zug" not only translates to "Train" but also to "turn" as in "It's my turn now" -> "Ich bin am Zug / Ich ziehe"
;;
level 1
boredgamelad
2 points· 4 years ago
The game is called Train to Train in German, Adventures on the Rail in France, Train Adventures in Spanish... the names are not direct translations of one another.
;;
level 1
PandaDerZwote
1 point· 4 years ago
While a "Zug" is a train, a "Zug" kann also mean a "turn", like in a board game. In chess for example, you have alternating turns and each turn is a "Zug".
***
Quid pro quo
Материал из Википедии — свободной энциклопедии
Не следует путать с Quiproquo.
Quid pro quo, Квипрокво;[1] или кипроко[2] (от лат. Quid pro quo — «то за это») — фразеологизм, обычно используемый в английском языке в значении «услуга за услугу»[3]. В испанском, итальянском, португальском, французском языках используется другой, очень похожий по звучанию, но имеющий другое значение фразеологизм латинского происхождения — «Quiproquo».
Этимология
Слово возникло с помощью лексико-семантического способа словообразования, путём сращения (после транслитерации лат. выражения quid pro quo в кви про кво) оборота в слово в начале 30-х годов XX в. Квипрокво по своему происхождению аналогично словам бомонд, игрек, сальто-мортале и т. п.: из французского i grec «и греческое», итальянского salto mortale «сальто смертельный», французского beau monde «прекрасный мир»).[1]
Применение
Слово Quid pro quo используется в контексте транскрипции или переписывания данных текста[4]. Не следует путать с Quiproquo, которое применяется в театральном контексте. Quid pro quo указывает на более или менее равный обмен услугами или товарами.
Фраза часто используется в современном английском языке, наряду с такими фразами как «a favor for a favor» (услуга за услугу), «what for what» (что за что), «give and take» (давать и брать), «tit for tat» (око за око), «this for that» (то за это), а также «you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours» (ты почеши мне спину, а я почешу твою). В английском языке обычно латинская фраза Quid pro quo означает do ut des (букв. я даю, чтобы вы могли дать).
Квипрокво (Quid pro quo) применяется в законодательстве как договор об обмене ценными вещами (товарами). Согласно общему праву, договор должен включать рассмотрение ценности товаров. Суды некоторых стран, при неравноценном обмене, могут признать квипрокво (услугу за услугу) недействительным[5].
Также бывает квипрокво домогательств (Quid pro quo sexual harassment), которое предполагает сексуальные домогательства, просьбы о сексуальных услугах или другое поведение сексуального характера. В обмен предлагается благоприятная обстановка в учёбе или на работе, или же положительное решение каких-либо проблем (наём, продвижение по службе, увеличение заработной платы, помощь в работе школы и т. д.). Данные случаи включают практические действия, которые негативно влияют либо на условия труда или на академическую успеваемость[уточнить].
В драматургии Quid pro quo — ситуация недоразумения, когда одно лицо, вещь, понятие принято за другое (например, в романе Марка Твена «Принц и нищий» нищий Том Кенти принят за принца Эдуарда, и наоборот).
См. такжеПаронимия
Quiproquo
Список латинских фраз
Око за око