I saw the word “sine qua non” in the article of New York Times (October 12) written by Gail Collins under the title, “The Gift of Glib.”
The article deals with the big Republican debate held in New Hampshire this week, and the word appears in the following sentence:
9-9-9 is the sine qua non of the (Herman) Cain candidacy. It would scrap the tax code and give us 9 percent corporate, income and national sales taxes. He mentions it every 10 seconds (in the debate).
I was able to find the definition of “sine qua non” in Merriam-Webster Dictionary as “something absolutely indispensable or essential” and “Reliability is a sine qua non for success” as a sample of its usage.
I’m interested in how popular or common this word is among native English speakers. I’ve been warned in how-to-write books that abuse of Latin often gives a pedantic tinge and looks odd.
If I use “sine qua non” instead of "essential or basic requirement" in colloquial conversation with native speakers, or even in writing, will I be ridiculed?
Best Answer
If you are trying to communicate clearly, in general it's best to avoid Latin phrases with some exceptions.
First, common Latin abbreviations (etc., e.g., i.e., et al.) are perfectly fine. Similarly, do not hesitate to use Latin phrases that are so common that they are rarely thought of as being a Latin phrase, e.g., status quo, rigor mortis, and per capita.
Also, do not hesitate to use Latin phrases in contexts where they have precise technical meanings. For example, lawyers and academics will use phrases like de facto, de jure, quid pro quo, a posteriori, and a priori with no potential for misunderstanding among professionals.
In summary, if you did not know the meaning of a specific phrase until recently, it may be likely that many other people do not recognize that phrase so its best to avoid it.