comparecientes comparecieron

15:12 Sep 4, 2022 

The battle is over
Winner +6
Loser -2
Let us learn things, if we can, and move on

14:55 Sep 4, 2022 

Mr Bramhall. Do not insist on it again. I believe you :-)

14:45 Sep 4, 2022 

for Mr.Toni Castano: The indicative indicates the literality of what is being described as fact, whereas the subjunctive expresses doubt and other emotions, such as the likelihood of a certain event occurring; in English the subjunctive also exists, but is nearly always in the same form as the indicative; a notable exception is the verb ' to be'; you have to say "if I were you", for example, rather than the indicative would be "if I was you"; the phrase you quote:"1) se señaló fecha a fin de que los comparecientes comparecieron ante la presencia judicial " is perfectly valid in the indicative mood, but could be used in the imperfect subjunctive as already said too often, i.e, 'comparecierAn'; to avoid ambiguity, the writer could have used the 'compareciesen' form instead, but didn't. That's because he /she meant the indicative.Nowhere is there anything to suggest that the actions described are still in the future, and hence, still subject to doubt, which would indeed have required the subjunctive. And you aren't the expert you think you are Toni; on July 22nd "Trazo la frontera .." you suggested 'trazÓ' required an accent to become 'he traced' in an exclusively 1st person narrative

11:41 Sep 4, 2022 

A brief explanation intended at helping you understand the source text.
The source is divided into TWO different sections, and this is the key point you failed again and again to see.
1) se señaló fecha a fin de que los comparecientes comparecieron ante la presencia judicial a la celebración de la (…).
This means that at this moment the parties had NOT appeared yet in the Court before the judge. However, the tense is defective, it is expressed in the “pretérito indefinido de indicativo”, which conveys the notion of an action already happened. But this tense is wrong, because if a date was set for the parties to appear, it is then obvious that they had not appeared yet at that very moment.
2) En fecha de XXXXXX comparecieron [pretérito indefinido de indicativo] ante este juzgado en forma virtual a través del enlace virtual (…).
This is the very moment (= date) when the parties did actually appear before the court, and they did it online.
I just hope that this explanation may be of any help for you to understand what (Toni Castaño, not Top Cat!!!) “Everyone with a minimum common sense (and sound knowledge of the two languages involved here) would recognize (…) at once”.

21:20 Sep 3, 2022 

Nonsense? not at all. Judged by your response to my answer and that to a "certain other", you're confused, as is TC;if "there's no need to use the subjunctive", as you state under AMM's answer,why is it under mine you state that it now HAS TO BE subjunctive"??and TC thinks there's a " preterite imperfect subjunctive" ; er, no; the two tenses are contradictions in terms, the former being a completed action in the past, the latter a continuous action in the past..Also, that " committee" business is my jokey dig at you-know-who. Maybe you should change your name to 'Andantetrans', as the slower tempo compared to " Allegro" might mean you make fewer mistakes. And I did check those terms. Couldn't find them anywhere.

11:57 Sep 3, 2022 

Patent nonsense. The term "enter an appearance" is standard legalese and has not been "completely discredited" by any campaign. And it does not simply mean "appear". Look it up in your legal dictionary if you have one.

11:02 Sep 3, 2022 

Completely discredited by the Committee of the Campaign for the Promotion of Plain English.
You can enter a courtroom , enter a jugment, enter a plea,but NOT be an "APPEARER"or enter an "APPEARANCE". Period. "to break the appearance double-up" ??? Er, no...