Search results for 'tag:Modals tag:Direct speech' matching tags 'Modals' and 'Direct speech'

Re: modal 'would'

26TMNTJG2PG — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 04:37:16 GMT

Anonymous
I already told Mark that when he would arrive, we would go out for dinner.

Let us recast the sentence in direct speech, that is, you are speaking to Mark, "When you arrive (simple present tense is most suitable here - I wonder you can use any other tense), we shall/will go out for dinner."

When you turn that into an indirect speech, the sentence will become, " I already told Mark that when he arrived, we would go out for dinner."

Re: Easy but long...)))

Yankee — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:20:51 GMT

Hi Pres1dent

You should break up long posts such as this one into several short posts. That way it's much easier for other people to comment.

I've made suggestions. Some of the sentences in these exercises don't sound terribly natural, so there are also suggestions in places where there were no asterisks (**).

I. Grammar Exercises
1 Articles
1. *(The)* equipment of from Blake & Co is very good. They sell it to ** various different companies
2. Where are *the* newspapers? They are on *the* desk.
3. There is ** ~~much~~ a lot of built-in furniture in our kitchen. *The* furniture makes *the* kitchen comfortable.
4. We are interested in buying ** the/ - machines from British companies.
5. *The* tools of Blake & Co tools are of ** high quality.
6. We~~âve~~ received *~~the~~ an* enquiry for ** three machines ~~lately~~ recently.
7. ** Last month our manager went to St. Petersburg by train. He ~~went there by~~ took *an * express train. *The* train had no stops.
8. If you want to get accommodation(s) at *a *hotel in Nice in the summertime you must reserve *the* room in advance. ** Nice hotels are full during the summer ~~time~~.
9. The seller didnât agree to give us *a* discount as their goods were in *a* great demand at that price.
10. We are interested in buying ** compressors for *a* new shop in *~~the~~* a large plant in Siberia. *The* shop is already under construction and the customers requires the goods urgently, as they must complete the construction of the shop by the end of the year.

2 Prepositions
1. She is sitting *on at* the table and ~~speaking~~ talking *on* the phone. She is making an appointment on for Friday.
2. They met Mr. Black *in* his office. The meeting began at 10 oâclock and lasted ** ~~(for?)~~ two hours.
3. *The* other day Rossexport received an enquiry for the motors of Johanson & Sons.
4. The train will arrive with a delay ~~for~~ of 40 minutes. Will you go to the departure lounge and wait for the announcement?
5. -Can you give us a discount *for/on* a large order?
- As we have done a lot of business with you, we can give you a small discount.
- In that case, weâd like to have a discount of 7%.
6. The charge for a room in this hotel is not very high.
7. They offered to deliver the pumps *in* ~~(of?)~~ four lots of 12 pumps each in at regular intervals of 5 months. (at regular 5-month intervals)
8. Youâve reserved a single and a double room ~~for you~~ for two nights on the fourth floor. These are modern rooms with private baths. They donât face the street.
9. -Iâd like a suit for office wear.
-Try *on/-* this one in for size. (OR: Try this one on for size.)
10. The seller offered the goods *at* CIF terms and payment collection. (This sounds clunky. I'd just say this: The seller offered the goods CIF.)

3 Degrees of comparison
1. The Sony TV set is more expensive than the Akai TV set. Itâs one of the most expensive TV sets.
2. Are our cars as convenient as German cars? (In my opinion, reliable would be a more logical choice of words.)
3. This is the busiest airport Iâve ever seen.
4. I come later on Mondays ~~later~~ than on other days.
5. ~~*More often*~~ we give a discount to buyers most often if we have known them for a long time.

4Verb times
1. Now you *see* Mr. Black in his office. During the day he *looks* through English newspapers and *discusses* business matters. Now he is reading a letter. Later, he *is going to phone* the manager of the company.
2. -What model are you interested in?
-Model BC5 *meets* our requirement.
3. The fact *is* I sent you our offer last week. In my letter I asked you to study it and give us your answer but we havenât received it yet.
4. -*Will* the plane to Moscow leaves on time? /Will the plane to Moscow be leaving on time?
-There is a delay but it probably *wonât be* over 30 minutes
5. Good morning, Mr. Black. Iâm glad to see you. I havenât seen you since we met in London
6. How long *~~it takes~~* (will it take?) me to get there?
-Itâll take you about half an hour to get there at this time of the day. There is a lot of traffic now. Look, bus 79A *is coming.*
7. Have you discussed the terms of delivery yet?
8. Jack arrived at the theatre about 7 oâclock. Ten minutes later he was sitting in the stalls and watching the performance.
9. Rossexport started shipping the goods nine months after we *(had) signed* the contract. (Past perfect is OK, but not necessary.)
10. I donât know when our accountant ~~comes~~ will be back

5Reported speech It's often difficult to judge reported speech without also knowing what the direct speech was.

1. Mr. Black said it hadnât taken us? long to discuss the price. (It sounds as though the sentence need 'them' rather than 'us'.)
2. The office manager said you would go ~~on business~~ to London on business soon.
3. Mr. Black asked if Mr. Taylor was staying with us.
4. Mr. Black wants to know what discount Mr. Smith can give us(?).
5. Mr. Black said your prices were very high and they couldnât accept them.
6. Mr. Black asked who Mr. Brown was waiting for.
7. Mr. Black wanted to know if Nancy had translated the letter.
8. Mr. Black says to look through the quotation from Dunn & Co.
9. Mr. Black said not to send the fax to Smith & Co.
10. Mr. Black asked if their goods met Mr. Smithâs requirements.

6Modal verbs
1. Can I offer you a cup of tea?
2. -~~Must~~ Do I have to go to the office every day?
-No, you ~~mustnât~~ don't.
3. -~~May~~ Can I invite businessmen to the conference room?
-No, you ~~mustnât (or mightnât?)~~ can't. It ~~must~~ has to be cleaned.
4. When can you look through it?
5. -Why are you so late?
-Because I had to phone the British company.
6. -Why did Mr. Smith go to London last month?
-He was/had to sign a contract there.
7. If the manager doesnât have to stay late at the head office today, he will be able to meet Mr. Smith
8. We received your offer 5 days ago ~~wand~~ but we ~~couldnât~~ haven't been able to study it (yet).
9. Who can make good coffee?
10. You are to contact Black & Co next Monday.

Re: I thought it would be nice

CalifJim — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:39:32 GMT

Basically, the reactor [might/could] have exploded can also have this meaning, which I thought I had to express with "might/could", not "might have /could have":
- It was possible that it exploded, and I don't know if it did, or it is not relevant anyway.

Here's the last problem, hopefully:
There's no difference between the forms in direct speech and the ones in reported speech, unless you're reporting something counterfactual (now you'll see what I mean by that "counterfactual"):

The reactor [might/could] have exploded, thank God it did not. ---> He said the reactor [might/could] have exploded, but it didn't. <-- Same Yes.

The reactor [might/could] have exploded, but I don't know if it did. ----> He said the reactor [might/could] have exploded, but he didn't know if it did. <--- Same Yes.

The reactor [might/could] explode, if I pushed this button. Dangerous, isn't it? ----> He said the reactor [might/could] have exploded (if he had pushed that button). <--- Counterfactual, not the same forms. You could also keep the same forms in some cases, it depends, the meaning would be a little different but sometimes it doesn't matter.

You have a choice. I would guess that the preference is for the version with the fewest number of words.

Reported "second" conditional (no backshift from original): He said (it was dangerous and that) the reactor [might/could] explode (if he pushed that button).
Alternate reported "second" conditional (backshifted into a "third" conditional): He said (it was dangerous and that) the reactor [might/could] have exploded (if he had pushed that button).
But reported "third" conditional: He said (it [was/had been] dangerous and that) the reactor [might/could] have exploded (if he had pushed that button).

So there's some chance for ambiguity. I recommend not using the alternate version where a "second" becomes a "third" conditional, but it seems to me that you'll hear either one.

The reactor [might/could] explode soon, but let's keep calm. -----> He said the reactor [might/could] explode soon and to keep calm anyway. <-- Same Yes.

Now, the problem is that those forms are not the same in non-subordinate clauses! True, but I didn't invent the English language, so don't sue me!
- That day, the reactor [might/could] have exploded, and we were told to keep calm. And in the end... Booom! It was Mark who told us that the reactor [might/could] explode. Yes.
- That day, the reactor [might/could] have exploded, and we were told to keep calm. And in the end... nothing happened! It was Mark who told us that the reactor [might/could] explode. Yes.
- That day, the reactor [might/could] have exploded, and we were told to keep calm. And in the end... I don't even know what happened, 'cause I fled! It was Mark who told us that the reactor [might/could] explode. Yes.

As you see, those are part of reported speech, but you also mentioned other sentences where the forms "might/could" should be used instead of "might have/ could have":
There was a danger that the reactor might explode. Yes. <--- and not "might have exploded".
How do I didtinguish between these usages? I mean, is "might/could" only to be used in subordinate clauses That would be an oversimplification. , or is there something weird here too? Like this sentence...
Everybody was afraid because the reactor might explode. Yes. <--- if that only applies to subordinate clauses, then this is not a subordinate, and "might" is ok, not "might have"...
My grammar book gives because as an example of a "subordinating conjunction", along with if, unless, while, since, and many others (actually, every conjunction except and, or, and but), so I'm puzzled by this remark. In any case, without having researched or introspected a great deal about it, I believe that any situation where the past point of view is already made clear in an initial main (independent) clause, the simple modals might and could will be appropriate in the following clauses. I can't swear to it; it's just my educated guess.

It might be worthwhile to note these:

There was a danger that it might explode. ~ The danger was that at some point in what-was-then-the-future it would possibly explode. [This may be thought of as the past of There is a danger that it may explode.]
Everybody was afraid because it might explode. ~ They were afraid that at some point in what-was-then-the-future it would possibly explode. [This may be thought of as the past of Everybody is afraid because it may explode.]

There was a danger that it might have exploded. ~ The danger was that at some point in what-was-then-the-past it had possibly already exploded. [This may be thought of as the past of There is a danger that it may have exploded.]
Everybody was afraid because it might have exploded. ~ They were afraid that at some point in what-was-then-the-past it had possibly already exploded. [This may be thought of as the past of Everybody is afraid because it may have exploded.]

Now, don't tear your hair out and start screaming, but the second of the two series above is sometimes taken to mean the same as the first series! -- that is, taken to refer to what was then the future instead of what was then the past. My recommendation, if you're interested, is to use them as paraphrased above, and passively recognize their use in different ways when reading them or hearing them.

CJ

Re: past tense of must in reported speech

Marius Hancu — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 13:17:58 GMT

We might not have the same edition.
In my case, it's
Swan
482, reporting (3), advanced points, item 5, modal verbs in indirect speech
on page 505

Re: past tense of must in reported speech

Marius Hancu — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:43:14 GMT

As per Swan, must is usually unchanged in indirect speech after past reporting verbs:
-------
Direct: It must be really late. I really must go.
Indirect: She said it must be pretty late and she really must go.

Swan, reporting (3), advanced points, modal verbs in indirect speech
-------
Valid for other modals too.

Re: Reported Speech (Modal verbs and Passive voice)

Anonymous — Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:37:52 GMT

I think that the 2nd one is different as she hould read, and should have. It is in past tence and not past tence really.

Eladio wrote:
Hello, everyone in EnglishForums. Here I am again with some doubts, now related to reported speech but when in direct speech were used modal verbs and passive voice. Could you help me, please? Tell me if the followings reported speeches are correctly stated by me:

Direct Speech: I said: âShe could read the paper everydayâ.
Reported Speech: I said that she could have read the paper everyday.

Direct Speech: I said: âShe should read the paper everydayâ.
Reported Speech: I said that she should have read the paper everyday.
Reported Speech: I said that she should read the paper everyday. I think both ways are correct.

Direct Speech: I said: âShe would read the paper everydayâ.
Reported Speech: I said that she would have read the paper everyday.

Direct Speech: I said: âShe must read the paper everydayâ.
Reported Speech: I said that she had to read the paper everyday.

Direct Speech: I said: âShe might read the paper everydayâ.
Reported Speech: I said that she might have read the paper everyday.

Direct Speech: I said: âShe may read the paper everydayâ.
Reported Speech: I said that she may have read the paper everyday.

Direct Speech: I said: âThe paper was read everydayâ.
Reported Speech: I said that the paper was read everyday. I think that if we use passive voice, we donât have to change it in reported speech. Am I right?

And thank you in advance,
Eladio

Re: Reported Speech (Modal verbs and Passive voice)

just the truth — Tue, 26 Apr 2005 06:20:52 GMT

Paco:

Sounds your books are telling merely that some native speakers don't do always the tense backshift in direct-to-indirect speech conversion. But I don't take it as that those books are saying ESL students always have to follow that kind of speech made by grammatically illiterate native speakers.

JTT:
That's an old falsehood, Paco but, I must admit, it is a common one. Let's do try to keep the facts straight though. It's apparent that you don't know what's grammatical or not grammatical. Without even checking or asking, you've made the completely unwarranted assumption that this applies to "illiterate native speakers".

That isn't the mark of someone who wants to find out the truth; that isn't the mark of a serious researcher; that isn't the mark of teacher of thirty years, Paco.

Eladio's question came directly because of what he's heard from native speakers on the street. Modern grammars take great pains to point out what's grammatical and what's not and I'm afraid, Paco, as good as you are, that you don't have the skills to determine which is which.

Re: Reported Speech (Modal verbs and Passive voice)

paco2004 — Tue, 26 Apr 2005 06:02:25 GMT

If we use passive voice, we don't have to change it in reported speech. Am I right?

JTT: That's right.

Sounds your books are telling merely that some native speakers don't do always the tense backshift in direct-to-indirect speech conversion. But I don't take it as that those books are saying ESL students always have to follow that kind of speech made by grammatically illiterate native speakers.

JTT, I think it's OK you make your assertion on the importance of learning out-of-grammar collocations native speakers are speaking everday. But if you like to do it, please do it in the Linguistics Discussion Forum. This forum is the place for EFL/ESL students, who are mostly coming to learn English grammar of the kind acceptable for pedagogic use.

paco

Re: Reported Speech (Modal verbs and Passive voice)

just the truth — Tue, 26 Apr 2005 05:28:55 GMT

CGEL:

Conversion to indirect reported speech not a matter of grammatical rule

There is a second respect in which we must beware of being misled by the traditonal account associating backshift with indirect reported speech. Converting into indirect reprted speech, however, is not a matter of applying rules of grammar that are specific to this purpose.

{JTT: emphasis NOT mine}

When I make an indirect report of [Jill's] speech, I purport to give the content of what she said - as opposed to quoting the actual wording,

This is how backshift is to be interpreted, not as converting one tense into another.

6.2.2 Obligatory vs optional backshifting

A backshifted preterite may be pragmatically equivalent to a present tense

Very often, the use of a backshifted preterite is optional.

Factors affecting choice between backshifted and non-backshifted versions

(a)

(b)

(c)

{JTT: the following specifically addresses Paco's concern about the passive though I must admit I'm lost as to why he thinks the passive should be treated in a different manner than other voices.}

(e) Simplification

In [some] case, the non-backshifted version may be prefered precisely for its greater simplicity.

Consider:

[32]

i She asked me where I was / had been born.

In cannot be interpreted as a backshifted preterite: it can be assumed that she did not ask, "Where are you born?"

=================================

The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course

The direct-to-indirect speech tense shift is the main piece of evidence cited to support the assignment of tense to modals. However, we demonstrate in Chapter 33, which deals with indirect speech, that the so-called rules of tesne shifting are NOT always followed by native speakers. This is especially true for modals; thus such evidence is somewaht weak.

==============

JTT: Paco, you should have listened to Eladio when he said,

"It was my feeling because I hear people talking in streets and I pay a lot of attention to them (to learn), and I hear many times they were talking about passive without changing it. Now I understand one more time, people talk as they wish and not always following correct grammar rules."

People who use language are the ones who determine its usage. Eladio only made one small slip up and that is understandable for everyone has long been subjected to the old lie that prescriptive grammar is somehow correct grammar. This is false false false.

People determine the rules of language. These old pedants who abandoned thinking in favor of rote memorization of prescriptions have, for too long, misled people on language. For ENLs it didn't and doesn't matter one iota, ENLs have never listened to these old canards.

For ESLs it matters a great deal. So when you, unwittingly I'm sure, pass on another language falsehood, it doesn't help Eladio and it doesn't help others who read the same thing.

Re: Reported Speech (Modal verbs and Passive voice)

paco2004 — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 23:27:37 GMT

7. Direct Speech: I said: âThe paper was read everydayâ.
Reported Speech: I said that the paper was read everyday.
I think that if we use passive voice, we donât have to change it in reported speech. Am I right?

JTT: That's right.

True?

"Yesterday President Bush said that America was dominated by British soldiers."

Huurm.. English is a quite queer language.

paco