me vs the man
January 23, 2009 7:06 AM Subscribe
"has been changed" vs "had been changed"
We have a notification system that pulls text from a database for inclusion in an email sent to users. If the text is too long, it is cut to a certain length with a note appended noting that it was truncated.
The note we're using is "(... Information has been truncated.)". I was asked by a (much) higher-up to change it to "(... Information had been truncated.)".
Which of these is correct? Why?
We have a notification system that pulls text from a database for inclusion in an email sent to users. If the text is too long, it is cut to a certain length with a note appended noting that it was truncated.
The note we're using is "(... Information has been truncated.)". I was asked by a (much) higher-up to change it to "(... Information had been truncated.)".
Which of these is correct? Why?
"has been"
posted by TypographicalError at 7:17 AM on January 23, 2009
posted by TypographicalError at 7:17 AM on January 23, 2009
Best answer: "has" (perfect) is correct here.
"had" is pluperfect or past perfect and is used to show that something happened before something else. Since you're only talking about one event here, "has" is what you want.
posted by rmless at 7:18 AM on January 23, 2009 [4 favorites]
"had" is pluperfect or past perfect and is used to show that something happened before something else. Since you're only talking about one event here, "has" is what you want.
posted by rmless at 7:18 AM on January 23, 2009 [4 favorites]
"had" would only seem appropriate if the footnote is part of some follow-up e-mail or something.
posted by null14 at 7:19 AM on January 23, 2009
posted by null14 at 7:19 AM on January 23, 2009
"has been truncated" is present perfect -- meaning that a past action still obtains in the present, roughly. I.e., you truncated it, and now it's still truncated. "had been truncated" is past perfect and would imply, well...that it had been truncated, but is not anymore. Your higher-up has some serious literacy issues.
As this Wikipedia article makes clear, past perfect implies "even earlier" ... so in this case: if you say "it had been truncated", the reader thinks: it was truncated, and then something else happened. Presumably something that made it no longer truncated.
posted by creasy boy at 7:21 AM on January 23, 2009
As this Wikipedia article makes clear, past perfect implies "even earlier" ... so in this case: if you say "it had been truncated", the reader thinks: it was truncated, and then something else happened. Presumably something that made it no longer truncated.
posted by creasy boy at 7:21 AM on January 23, 2009
rmless nails it. Without the context of the sentences around it, it's difficult to tell which is "correct", though.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:24 AM on January 23, 2009
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:24 AM on January 23, 2009
Response by poster: Thanks rmless, and to creasy boy for the wikipedia link.
PhoBWanKenobi, the preceding text usually is some kind of technical message which very rarely contains anything resembling a sentence. The sentence immediately following this note is "Please reference for the full text."
posted by jma at 7:30 AM on January 23, 2009
PhoBWanKenobi, the preceding text usually is some kind of technical message which very rarely contains anything resembling a sentence. The sentence immediately following this note is "Please reference
posted by jma at 7:30 AM on January 23, 2009
Response by poster: argh... that was supposed to be "Please reference <originating system> for the full text."
posted by jma at 7:31 AM on January 23, 2009
posted by jma at 7:31 AM on January 23, 2009
Yeah, your way's right then.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:17 AM on January 23, 2009
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:17 AM on January 23, 2009
I think another issue is that "had been" is confusing. If I got an email saying "information had been truncated" I'd wonder whether the information was still truncated, or had been un-truncated for me. I would then parse the information to try and determine if it had been truncated or not. So it may go a bit beyond just a proper grammar exercise.
Others explained it better, but this little exercise helped me sort it out:
has been => some past event is currently still in effect (Obama has been president for two days. Who is the president now? Obama.)
had been => something past event is no longer in effect (Bush had been president for eight years. Who is the President now? Unspecified.)
posted by forforf at 8:49 AM on January 23, 2009
Others explained it better, but this little exercise helped me sort it out:
has been => some past event is currently still in effect (Obama has been president for two days. Who is the president now? Obama.)
had been => something past event is no longer in effect (Bush had been president for eight years. Who is the President now? Unspecified.)
posted by forforf at 8:49 AM on January 23, 2009
Above answers are all correct IMHO. However for political reasons in working with your (much) higher-up, I might suggest re-wording it to avoid the "has/had been" issue altogether, thus avoiding a head-butting contest in a situation where it's not likely to come off well for you.
Like:
"Information truncated--please see XXX for full text."
posted by flug at 9:15 AM on January 23, 2009
Like:
"Information truncated--please see XXX for full text."
posted by flug at 9:15 AM on January 23, 2009
I think another issue is that "had been" is confusing. If I got an email saying "information had been truncated" I'd wonder whether the information was still truncated, or had been un-truncated for me.
Seconding this. If I got an e-mail saying information "had been truncated," my first thought would be that it is no longer truncated -- that it had been truncated by mistake earlier, and this was to alert me that error had been corrected.
If I got an e-mail saying "information has been truncated" it would be 100% clear to me that the information is truncated.
I also agree with flug that the easiest solution that won't make you look bad is to say something like "Information is truncated." Because it is.
posted by Nattie at 11:43 PM on January 23, 2009
Seconding this. If I got an e-mail saying information "had been truncated," my first thought would be that it is no longer truncated -- that it had been truncated by mistake earlier, and this was to alert me that error had been corrected.
If I got an e-mail saying "information has been truncated" it would be 100% clear to me that the information is truncated.
I also agree with flug that the easiest solution that won't make you look bad is to say something like "Information is truncated." Because it is.
posted by Nattie at 11:43 PM on January 23, 2009
« Older The lone scientist in the Caribbean | Purchasing department people: Credit card or... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Perplexity at 7:14 AM on January 23, 2009