YOU ASKED ME THIS QUESTION

Should lawyers casually say “plea of guilty” and “plea of innocent”?

Question by Atty. Danny Valdez (August 29, 2009):

We lawyers casually say, “plea of guilty.” The law (at least Sec. 27 of the Rules on Evidence) even uses the phrase. If that were correct, then there must also be a “plea of innocent.” Shouldn’t it be a “plea of guilt” instead?

The frequently used adjective “most sought-after” is derived from the verb “seek,” which is transitive. What then is the reason behind the use of the word “after”?

Dear Danny:

What people say casually isn’t always grammatically correct, and the casual language of lawyers is no exception. The phrase “plea of guilty,” which is of the form “noun + of + adjective, is definitely bad grammar; it’s as grammatically wrong and ill-advised as “offer of lovely,” “statement of ugly,” or “demand of nasty.” The correct form for such phrases is, as you correctly surmise, “noun + of + noun,” as in “plea of guilt” and its polar opposite, “plea of innocence.” (To belabor the point, the correct construction of my three wrong-usage examples is “lovely offer,” “ugly statement,” and “nasty demand,” respectively.)

But as you say, the rules of grammar had not stopped lawyers from using “plea of guilty” casually and from even enshrining it in the Rules of Evidence. There ought to be a law against such grammar misuse, and it better be enacted fast before some trigger-happy compañeros of yours start casually using “plea of innocent” and—Lady Justice forbid!— think of enshrining it in the Rules of Evidence as well.

The adjectival phrase “most sought-after” is a phrasal verb or verb phrase, which is an expression that consists of a verb or adverb that ends in a preposition. The transitivity or intransitivity of the verb actually has got nothing to do with the form of such phrases and the preposition they end with. Indeed, a phrasal verb or verb phrase often doesn’t have an overt grammar logic; it just becomes entrenched in the language through repeated use, in much the same way as “plea of guilty” had become entrenched in lawyers’ circles. The problem with language, in fact, is that even wrong grammar or wrong usage gets legitimized by repeated use—very much like a lie becoming truth in the mind of the clueless or naive through sheer repetition.

Click to read responses or post a response

How do we use the phrases “was/were to be” and “was/were to have been”?

Question by Julius De La Cruz (August 29, 2009):

Could you please explain to me the proper usage of the phrases “was/were to be” and “was/were to have been” as used in sentences that convey actions or incidents that did not happen?

Dear Julius:

The form “was/were to be + past participle of the verb” is normally used in the main clause of a compound passive-voice sentence that conveys an action or event that didn’t happen. A coordinate clause then provides a reason, explanation, or justification as to why the expected action didn’t happen.

“The crop was to be harvested that day, but heavy rains prevented the farmers from harvesting it.” (Compound sentence with “but” as coordinating conjunction)

“The crop was to be harvested that day; however, heavy rains prevented the farmers from harvesting it.” (Compound sentence with “however” as conjunctive adverb)

Note than when such passive-voice compound sentences are rendered in the active voice, the form of the verb in the main coordinate clause changes to “was/were + infinitive form of the verb”:

“The farmers were to harvest the crop that day, but the heavy rains prevented them from doing so.”

“The farmers were to harvest the crop that day; however, the heavy rains prevented them from doing so.”

It’s rare for a clause using the form “was/were to be + past participle of the verb” to be a stand-alone clause. If at all, that clause can take a stand-alone form only in answer to a question as to what action or event was expected to happen but didn’t, as in the following exchange:

Question: “What was expected to happen last Monday?”
Answer:   “The prisoners were to be released that day.”

On the other hand, the form “was/were to have been + past participle of the verb” is normally used in the main clause of a compound passive-voice sentence that conveys an action or event that happened later than expected or scheduled. A coordinate clause then provides a reason, explanation, or justification for the delay in the action taken or in the holding of the event.

“The parcel was to have been delivered by noon, but the courier came late so it was delivered in the evening instead.”

“The parcel was to have been delivered by noon; however, the courier came late so it was delivered in the evening instead.”

When such passive-voice compound sentences are rendered in the active voice, the form of the verb in the main coordinate clause changes to “was/were supposed/expected/scheduled to have + past participle of the verb”:

“The courier was supposed to have delivered that parcel by noon, but he came late so it was delivered in the evening instead.”

“The courier was supposed to have delivered that parcel by noon; however, he came late so it was delivered in the evening instead.”

Clauses using the form “was/were to have been + past participle of the verb” are grammatically very cumbersome and unwieldy when used as stand-alone clauses, so it’s not advisable to use them as such. They should always form part of a compound sentence where the second coordinate clause explains the delay in the consummation of the action or event.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)