Probably not. It seems that Article 81(3) may have exempted them. They are now exempt under that article."Such agreements are unlikely to be exempt under Article 81(3)."
Shouldn't "exempt" be "exempted"?
The word "exempt" is used correctly in this sentence as it refers to the future,....."to be exempt"."Such agreements are unlikely to be exempt under Article 81(3)."
Shouldn't "exempt" be "exempted"?
Thanks!
Well, no. We could be referring to an Article in a treaty that is yet to be ratified. Exempted (past participle/third form) is possible then:The word "exempt" is used correctly in this sentence as it refers to the future,....."to be exempt".
The fact that "exempted" is in the past form, it cannot be used.
Well, no. We could be referring to an Article in a treaty that is yet to be ratified. Exempted (past participle/third form) is possible then:
Such agreements will be exempted.
Such agreements are unlikely to be exempted.
It's really a question of whether we are interested in the state of their being exempt or the process by which they were/are/will be exempted (passive).
Yes.So, in other words, "exempt" and "exempted" would both be correct in the example I provided. "Exempt" would emphasize the state of being exempt, while "exempted" would stress the process of exemption.