I just made the mistake of using "Auditory" in the context of auditing. For example:

"We need to include that information, for auditory purposes."

After I sent my e-mail, I was embarrassed to find out that "auditory" refers to hearing.

  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – tchrist Aug 20 '18 at 20:01
  • 1
    It should be noted that the derivation of "audit" is from the Latin for "to hear", so "auditory" is not technically incorrect (though it would certainly confuse many). – Hot Licks Sep 20 '18 at 2:27
  • Just use audit. For audit purposes. On a side note, I'm not sure that the comma is justified. And the hyphen in email certainly isn't. – RegDwigнt Oct 20 '18 at 4:20

I'm not recommending the phrasing when I say 'auditorial' works in your example sentence:

We need to include that information, for auditorial purposes.

I'm sure there are better ways to put it, depending on context and intention. For example:

  1. We need to audit that information.
  2. That information must be included for the audit.
  3. Etc.

From OED:

auditorial, adj.
2. Of or pertaining to auditors of accounts; connected with an audit.

In your example, the purposes are connected with an audit.

| improve this answer | |
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Lordology Mar 17 '19 at 21:01
  • I have raised this on Meta. – Lordology Mar 17 '19 at 21:21
  • 'auditorial' may well be literally correct, but it really sounds like you're talking about hearing. I'd suggest the noun attribute, as in 'audit purposes'. – Mitch Mar 17 '19 at 21:46
  • @Mitch, I think the caveat is well enough embedded in the answer. To me, "audit purposes" sounds redundant, flabby businessese: an audit has purpose all on its own. Hence, my examples of better ways to put it. – JEL Mar 17 '19 at 22:29


As a Native North American English speaker I would say, "We need to include that information, for auditing purposes."

Source http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/participle.htm

Source -https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participle

Source - https://www.englishgrammar.org/participles/

Source - https://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/present_participle.htm

"Auditing" in this case is used as a present participle. "Audited" can be used as the past participle.

For example, "Our data is stored in audited databases." And, "E & Y reviewed the auditing logs."

In my experience this usage is common in the Eastern United States.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    That's a noun, not an adjective! Our purposes are more auditing than yours? Or are yours very auditing? Doesn't smell like an adjective to me: it's a noun. Not that he needs an adjective. – tchrist Aug 17 '18 at 20:09
  • 1
    @tchrist However if I say "Do you require that for medical or auditing purposes?", is it the case that "medical" qualifies as an adjective, but "auditing" doesn't? – WS2 Aug 17 '18 at 21:03
  • @tchrist I think it is technically a participle, which I believe can be used as an adjective. chompchomp.com/terms/participle.htm – Lumberjack Aug 17 '18 at 23:40
  • I’m sorry, but your reference is wrong. To say that “participles” can be part of multiword verbs or be nouns or be adjectives is using that word in a highly nonstandard way that runs counter to modern analysis, where by “modern” I mean anything within living memory of anyone alive today. That’s just saying that a participle is any -ing word deriving from the base form of a verb. That’s a morphological criterion, not one that describes a word’s part of speech the way verb, noun, adjective and all do. It’s no adjective because it doesn’t let you do adjective things to it, (continued) – tchrist Aug 18 '18 at 0:23
  • 1
    One last demo that this is not an adjective here: flipping the first two words, both putative adjectives by your account, in “intensive auditing purposes”, produces “auditing intensive purposes” which means something completely different grammatically. It parses differently. Changing “great green dragon” into “green great dragon” may sound funny, but it doesn’t require a radical reassignment of parts of speech the way the other does. Hence, the first is not a pair of adjectives. – tchrist Aug 18 '18 at 0:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.