32 writers beg the NYT not to use "quid pro quo" because it's important to stick to words people understand in "these... parlous times."

Writers! Always good to hear from them. Are they really for clear speech? Let's read "A Plea From 33 Writers: Words Matter. Stop Using ‘Quid Pro Quo.’ The writers urge The Times to avoid language that people don’t understand or that underplays the facts":

Please stop using the Latin phrase “quid pro quo” regarding the impeachment inquiry. Most people don’t understand what "quid pro quo" means, and in any case it doesn’t refer only to a crime. Asking for a favor is not a criminal act; we frequently demand things from foreign countries before giving them aid, like asking them to improve their human rights record.

That is not a crime; the crime is President Trump’s demand for something that will benefit him personally. But using this neutral phrase — which means simply “this for that” — as synonymous with criminality is confusing to the public. It makes the case more complicated, more open to question and more difficult to plead.

Sometimes when people are making an argument, they choose the obfuscatory approach.

Please use words that refer only to criminal behavior here. Use “bribery” or “extortion” to describe Mr. Trump’s demand to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, making it very clear that this is a crime. The more we hear words that carry moral imputations, the more we understand the criminal nature of the act.

Thanks for making it clear why the NYT is choosing not to make it clear! Let me be clear: If the NYT is clear about what would be a crime as distinguished from what Presidents ought to do when giving aid to a foreign country, then it won't be clear at all that he did it. You would have to guess what was going on inside his head. You would have to make inferences that go beyond the text of the transcript. You would have to fold in your subjective notion that Trump is a bad guy who should never have become President.

Please also stop using the phrase “dig up dirt.” This slang has unsavory connotations.

Yes, it's saying that there is dirt — dirt on Biden and son — and all that needs to be done is to excavate it. Yes, "dirt" sounds bad, but in the previous sentence you were urging the NYT to use "words that carry moral imputations." Did you not notice that you flipped on your own idea? It's pretty embarrassingly obvious that you switched because you want the press to use negative words when speaking about Trump, but you think it's so wrong to be negative when talking about the Bidens.

Instead, please use the more formal, direct and powerful phrase “create false evidence,” or “find incriminating evidence” or the simpler “tell lies about.”

But that makes it easier to say that Trump didn't do it! There's nothing in the transcript where Trump says he wants Zelensky to manufacture evidence. If you state the accusation clearly, the accusation sounds worse, but it also sounds untrue. Why don't these writers consider the potential for bad motives and sneakiness in the press?! These writers seem to be mostly (perhaps all) novelists. Their books necessarily show us multiple characters, so shouldn't they naturally think of all the complexity going on inside everyone who participates in a human activity? Now, I'm giving some thought to the complexity of the intentions and schemes of the writers who signed this letter! What are they really up to? How honest is their little lecture?

Words make a difference.

Indeed. That's why I love your next sentence. It's so revealing!

These are parlous times, and we look to public voices for dignity, intelligence and gravitas.

Parlous! Why would anyone ever use "parlous" instead of "perilous"? This is a question I've had for half a century — ever since I first encountered "parlous" when studying for the SAT. Outside of a Shakespeare play (or a vocabulary test), when do you ever hear this word? I guess in this case, the writers are attempting to display their dignity, intelligence, and gravitas.

Gravitas! Hey, that's funny too! They started off advising against using Latin, and then they used Latin! I looked up "quid pro quo" and "gravitas" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Both have entries, which means both are considered part of the English language. But the usage of "quid pro quo" in English goes back to the 1500s, and the earliest usage of "gravitas" in English is 1924.

The letter concludes:

Please use precise and forceful language that reveals the struggle in which we now find ourselves. It’s a matter of survival.

So it's not a plea for "precise and forceful language" per se.* It's a plea to write with an agenda: We're in a struggle for survival and the NYT ought to choose the words that instill that point of view. Just as you can't "dig up dirt" unless there is dirt, you can't "reveal the struggle" for "survival" unless there is a struggle for survival.

The writers present themselves as experts on the use of words, but a good reader can find many problems in their effort to lecture about language. And it's easy to see that they're not really sticking to their zone of professional expertise, that what they're expressing is their antagonism toward Trump, which is just an amateur opinion. There's no literary depth in their understanding of Trump. In fact, they present Trump as a one-dimensional villain. He's dragging us into a struggle for survival! That's a comic-book level presentation — at best — and it makes me squeamish to see writers displaying themselves so crudely.

____________________

* "Per se," like "quid pro quo," has been used in writing in English since the 1500s. And I say that with gravitas in these parlous times.