grammar nazis: verb tense

[ElFenix]

in the past a document was attached to a pleading (and it is still attached). if i'm referencing that document do i use:

"a copy of which was attached to the pleading"

or

"a copy of which is attached to the pleading"

(would really like lawyers to respond. motionman, sjwaste, get in here.)

 

[rcpratt]

Not a lawyer, maybe a licensing engineer is good enough. Our procedures (and industry standards) tell us that most reports should be written in present tense.

I'd be rather surprised if this wasn't also the general convention in the world of law.

 

[KidNiki1]

Present tense. 'is attached'
Unless for some reason it no longer is attached, which I doubt.

Also not a lawyer. English major.

 

[ElFenix]

Present tense. 'is attached'
Unless for some reason it no longer is attached, which I doubt.

Also not a lawyer. English major.

yes, still attached.

english major is probably better than lawyer as we like to replace the word 'the' with 'such' :\

 

[dank69]

callout. ban.

 

[Gibson486]

Not a lawyer, maybe a licensing engineer is good enough. Our procedures (and industry standards) tell us that most reports should be written in present tense.

I'd be rather surprised if this wasn't also the general convention in the world of law.

LOL dude, coming from an engineer himself, we are the last people you want involved in the world of law.

 

[rcpratt]

LOL dude, coming from an engineer himself, we are the last people you want involved in the world of law.

Licensing engineers are engineers that know how to write.

 

[Nik]

in the past

You just answered your own question. :|

 

[Nik]

Present tense. 'is attached'
Unless for some reason it no longer is attached, which I doubt.

Also not a lawyer. English major.

Doesn't it depend on context? From the context we're given, he's describing an act in the past. The correct verb is "was."

Perhaps he's making a statement saying "at one time it was attached but by saying 'was' I am conceding that it may not be attached anymore and that I do not know."

If, in the context of the conversation, he's trying to refer to an article that he knows is still attached, then he can use "is" instead but he didn't include such details. So, based on the information he's given us, the verb must be past tense.

 

[Gibson486]

Licensing engineers are engineers that know how to write.

Yes, I am aware of that. My former job was writing engineering specs and contracts, yelling at contractor's nicely on public bid projects, and looking over RFPs. However, I am sure that I am not the first to admit the most engineers think they are better in everything than they really are.

 

[rcpratt]

Yes, I am aware of that. My former job was writing engineering specs and contracts, yelling at contractor's nicely on public bid projects, and looking over RFPs. However, I am sure that I am not the first to admit the most engineers think they are better in everything than they really are.

I know, just giving you a hard time. But hey, just throwing my opinion in the hat.

I do, however, know that I'm right :sneaky:

 

[Gibson486]

I know, just giving you a hard time. But hey, just throwing my opinion in the hat.

I do, however, know that I'm right :sneaky:

As an engineer, I know that I am right also...:sneaky:

We'll fight to the death only to find out that someone in the field has proved us both wrong!

 

[Nik]

As an engineer, I know that I am right also...:sneaky:

We'll fight to the death only to find out that someone in the field has proved us both wrong!

...should be "proven"

 

[KidNiki1]

If, in the context of the conversation, he's trying to refer to an article that he knows is still attached, then he can use "is" instead but he didn't include such details. So, based on the information he's given us, the verb must be past tense.

OP already clarified it is still attached. He is referring to the document in a current, present tense scenario. 'is attached' describes the current state of the document and is therefore, in my opinion, the better choice.

You are correct in that either phrase could be accurate. However, I am assuming the purpose of his reference to the document is not to point out the time at which it was attached, but rather the location it is attached for those possibly needing to know where to find said document.

 

[ElFenix]

If, in the context of the conversation, he's trying to refer to an article that he knows is still attached, then he can use "is" instead but he didn't include such details. So, based on the information he's given us, the verb must be past tense.

read post #4 (and clarified OP)

but rather the location it is attached for those possibly needing to know where to find said document.

exactly

 

[fjmeat]

"a copy of which is attached to the pleading"

Always this.

 

[torpid]

Generally, if you sent someone a document with an attachment, I would use "was." If you are discussing materials relating to an ongoing case and wish to note that a particular document in there has an attachment, I would use "is."

 

[rcpratt]

Generally, if you sent someone a document with an attachment, I would use "was."

I wouldn't.

 

[KidNiki1]

Really, the only way I would use 'was attached' is if:

I want to point out when the document and the pleading met. "The document was attached to the pleading last year."

I want to point out the document and the pleading used to hang, but don't anymore. "The document was attached to the pleading until Bob deleted the document." (frikkin Bob!)

As long as the document is still currently attached, then, well, it 'is attached'.

 

[twinrider1]

in the past a document was attached to a pleading (and it is still attached). if i'm referencing that document do i use:

"a copy of which was attached to the pleading"

or

"a copy of which is attached to the pleading"

(would really like lawyers to respond. motionman, sjwaste, get in here.)

"Is" is mostly likely correct. But we'd need to see the rest of the sentence to know for sure. Context matters.

 

[eits]

"about which a copy is attached to the pleading" depending on the context... if necessary, replace "about" with "of"