A Few Latin Words That Actually Show Up in Real Work
Most of the people who tell you Latin is dead don't use it in any professional capacity. I spent years reading contracts, compliance documents, and academic papers where these terms appear without warning, usually mid-sentence and without explanation. If you work in law, medicine, academia, or even just read enough business journalism, you will encounter them. Here are the ones that matter, and the ones that don't. Ad hoc — literally "for this." It describes something created for a specific purpose, usually when there was no prior planning. I once had a client insist we build an entire "ad hoc reporting pipeline" in Salesforce because the standard reports were "not flexible enough." It wasn't. We ended up spending three weeks building it, and it broke every time the data model updated. Just use the pivot table tool already built into the platform. Ad hoc solutions have a shelf life of about six months before they become tech debt. Per se — "by itself" or "inherently." People misuse this constantly. Saying "it's not bad per se" means the thing itself isn't bad, but the context makes it problematic. Don't use it to mean "therefore" or "basically." That's a different logic entirely. I've corrected this in at least forty peer-reviewed submissions over the years, and it still happens in the draft stage every time.
Bona fide — "in good faith." Used primarily in legal and business contexts to describe something genuine or sincere. A bona fide offer, a bona fide occupational qualification. The key distinction is that it's about intent, not outcome. You can make a bona fide effort and still fail. I've seen companies try to argue something was bona fide after the fact when the documentation clearly showed deliberate circumvention. Courts don't buy it, and neither should you. Pro bono — short for pro bono publico, "for the public good." This is legal work done for free, usually for clients who can't pay. The legal profession has formalized this, but the concept predates it by centuries. A practical note: pro bono work often ends up costing more in overhead than billable hours because the administrative burden doesn't disappear just because you're not charging. Track your time even if you don't invoice it. Et al. — short for et alii, "and others." Used in citations when there are multiple authors. If you're writing academically, you've seen this. If you haven't, you will. The abbreviation is period after the t only. Et al is wrong. I've flagged this in my own submissions by accident more than once, which is embarrassing because it's the simplest one on this list.
Vs. — short for versus, "against." Used in legal cases and sports. The period is standard in American English. In British English it sometimes appears without one. Neither is technically wrong, but mixing them within a single document looks careless. I don't care about the linguistic origins at this point. I just want consistency. Viz. — short for videlicet, "namely" or "that is to say." This one is rare outside of legal and academic writing. It introduces a specific list or clarification. Use it when you need to be precise about what you just said generally. Most people prefer "that is" or "namely" now. Viz. is functional but increasingly perceived as pretentious in non-legal contexts. Your call. I.e. — short for id est, "that is." It clarifies or restates what you just said. The common mistake is confusing it with e.g. They mean different things. I.e. means "in other words" — you're restating the same idea. E.g. means "for example" — you're giving an illustration. I've seen these swapped in boardroom presentations and the confusion was real. People nodded along while meaning completely different things.
Get the Full Details
E.g. — short for exempli gratia, "for the sake of example." It introduces one or more examples. Never use it when you mean "that is." If I say "use protective equipment, e.g. gloves and goggles," I'm giving examples. If I say "use protective equipment, i.e. gloves and goggles," I'm saying those are the only acceptable options. The difference matters in safety protocols. Circa — "around" or "approximately," usually referring to dates. Circa 1995, circa the time of the event. In academic writing it signals uncertainty about a date. The abbreviation c. is more common in citations. I prefer writing out "around" in plain text. Circa adds nothing for a general audience and slows down reading. Interim — "in the meantime." Used as a noun or adjective. An interim CEO, interim measures, the interim period. It's Latin but it's fully absorbed into English. You won't get called out for using it. The edge case is when people use it to mean "temporary" in contexts where the temporariness is indefinite. Interim doesn't mean short-term. It means during an intervening period, and that period could be years.
Status quo — "the current state of affairs." Often used in political and business discussions. The phrase appears mostly in the formula "maintain the status quo" or "return to the status quo." Be careful with it. It sounds neutral but it's a loaded term. Maintaining the status quo is a decision, not an absence of one. I learned this the hard way during a strategy session where someone kept saying we should "preserve the status quo" while proposing changes to half the operational workflow. Ultra vires — "beyond the powers." Used in corporate and administrative law when an organization or official acts outside their legal authority. A corporation can only do what its charter permits. If it does something ultra vires, the action may be invalid. This is niche but important if you deal with corporate governance. I encountered it when reviewing a subsidiary's authorization letters and noticed they'd signed agreements that exceeded their delegated authority. The parent company had to ratify everything retroactively, which took two months of legal review. Caveat emptor — "let the buyer beware." This is the principle that the buyer is responsible for checking quality before purchase. It's the default in many commercial transactions unless there's a warranty or consumer protection law that overrides it. The practical reality is that modern consumer law has eroded this significantly in most jurisdictions. But it still applies in private sales, auction purchases, and commercial transactions between businesses. If you're buying equipment from another company with no warranty, caveat emptor is very much in effect.
There's a reason these words survive. They're precise. English often lacks exact equivalents, which is why we keep borrowing from Latin rather than inventing new terms. The pitfall is using them when plain English would be clearer. I've edited documents where the author replaced "approximately" with "circa," "namely" with "viz.," and "in good faith" with "bona fide" and nobody asked them to. It was ego, not clarity. Don't do that. The bigger issue is misapplication. These aren't decorative. Each one carries a specific meaning that shifts the sentence. Get it wrong and you say the opposite of what you meant. That's not a minor editing problem. It's a liability problem in legal and technical writing. I'd rather see you use "for example" and be clear than "e.g." and be wrong.
