0

For example, "I found that LA is not an island." (Truth always)

or "I ensured them that car insurance is necessary." (Truth in past and now still)

Do I have to use "was" instead of "is" for tense agreement?

Daebarkee
  • 205
  • 2
    No. There is no obligatory "tense agreement" in English. In both examples either is or was may be used, at the speaker's option. However, in the second example, the verb to use is assured. Not ensured, which does not take an indirect object and is therefore ungrammatical in this sentence, and doesn't mean what you want anyway (to ensure means to find out for sure, not to tell anybody anything). – John Lawler Jan 03 '14 at 17:45
  • 1
    I seem to remember some forecasting about a quake eventually tearing part of California off the mainland. So the "truth always" status of "LA is not an island" is somewhat debatable. :) – cHao Jan 03 '14 at 19:56

1 Answers1

1

If it is still necessary, most people would default to is, but was is also correct because at the time it was necessary. The fact that it is still necessary isn't necessarily relevant. It depends on subtle context of the conversation.

Jacobm001
  • 2,356
  • 1
    What do you mean, "technically"? Exactly what rule is being applied to produce this judgement? – John Lawler Jan 03 '14 at 17:54
  • 2
    '...technically was is correct...' assumes that there is an obligatory "tense agreement" in English, which J Lawler said/says there isn't. As both was necessary and is necessary (at the time the speaker utters the words) make sense, tecnically both are correct here. And if the laws of the land have changed, one may be grammatically correct but a false statement. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 03 '14 at 17:56
  • @JohnLawler: It's technically correct because although people would usually default to is, was is still correct. I'm judging that based on the fact that there isn't a rule to my knowledge that invalidates the usage of was. – Jacobm001 Jan 03 '14 at 17:57
  • 1
    @Jacobm001: Sorry if my downvote seems a bit harsh! But I'm solidly behind John & Edwin here, and it seems to me your "technically was* is correct"* erroneously implies that "technically is* is incorrect"*. And that bothers me. – FumbleFingers Jan 03 '14 at 18:01
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers: I have reworded for better clarification. – Jacobm001 Jan 03 '14 at 18:05
  • @Jacobm001: Downvote duly reversed, since I do agree with you that although in a general sense both tenses are "correct", certain contexts favour either past or present tense for conditions that are still (or "universally") true. But those contexts probably never actually require either tense, so I'm more than happy with your "most people would..." And let's not forget that OP could just as well have said "I assured them that car insurance would be* necessary."* – FumbleFingers Jan 03 '14 at 18:12