Search results for 'tag:Present tenses tag:Indirect speech' matching tags 'Present tenses' and 'Indirect speech'

Re: backshifting in indirect speech and verbs of communication

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 05:40:10 GMT

Hi,

You wrote:

I learn from a grammar book that a small set of verbs of communication such as "tell", "say" and "hear" can be used in simple present tense even though the act of telling, saying or hearing happened in the past. for example, "Bill tells me you are moving to Sydney". according to the book, Bill's telling me was in fact in past time, but we're more concerned with the content of Bill's telling rather than Bill's act of communication. and thus the simple present form "tells" is not ungrammatical here.

I think the book is correct in that most people (or some people) I know from America talk like that: Part of the sentence might be in past time but it is not to be ungrammatical since I think the present focus of the conversation is in the past, present or in the future and that seems to be more important than the other.

eg,

Q Hi, John, I hear you got a raise. -- the hearing occurred in the past and the raise probably, if it is true, happened in the past but only one verb is in the past but I think it is grammatical.

A: Yes, how did you know? I got a raise last month.

As to your reported speech question, I think if something is to be fulfilled or realized in the future, then the tense remains in the future.

What John said yesterday: I will get a raise soon.

Reported speech: John said he will get a raise soon.

Please wait for other responses.

backshifting in indirect speech and verbs of communication

guzhao67 — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 05:14:18 GMT

Hi there: I learn from a grammar book that a small set of verbs of communication such as "tell", "say" and "hear" can be used in simple present tense even though the act of telling, saying or hearing happened in the past. for example, "Bill tells me you are moving to Sydney". according to the book, Bill's telling me was in fact in past time, but we're more concerned with the content of Bill's telling rather than Bill's act of communication. and thus the simple present form "tells" is not ungrammatical here. But in the subsequent part of the book, when dealing with backshifting in indirect reported speech, i found two examples which seem to contradict to the above cited example.(I must be wrong when I'm saying "contradict") The examples are: if Bill's original statement is "the match starts on 2 June", then 2 ways of indirect report are possible, according to the context. the first is "Bill said the march started on 2 June", and the second is "Bill said the march starts on 2 June" (if the report is before 2 June). My question is: why don't we use "Bill says...." here? since, according to the book, "say" is a verb of communication and the focus of the report seems to be the content of the Bill's statement, too. I'm really confused. Or maybe there are some other considerations which I've ignored. could you please help me. Thank you.

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: I thought a spider is/was an insect

Pter — Thu, 08 May 2008 06:48:45 GMT

Sorry for starting it again, but I am still not quite sure in this case. I was taught that when talking about universal truths or general knowledge, the present tense should be used in indirect speech.

By the way, I suppose you are just making up an example quickly. I think you know the sun IS in fact a star.

Re: She said that she would/should marry him.(Which one should I use?)

Hoa Thai — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 01:35:12 GMT

Hi Viceidol,

For reported / indirect speech, we convert the present tense to the past tense as shown below:

will, would

can, could

must, had to

shall, should

may, might

Therefore, #2 is correct.

Re: Indirect speech - backshift of tense

Anonymous — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:30:06 GMT

The correct version is I said I didn't want to live with her. There should be the consequence of tenses and tha past tense and the present tense in one sentence don't go together.

Re: indirect speech?

Mister Micawber — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:45:20 GMT

With all the wanderings of this thread, I am not sure of the question. Regarding these sentences:

"i wish i could tell you what this is" (this present unidentifiable object)

"i wish i could tell you what this was" (the same object)

"i wish i could tell you how i feel" (right now)

"i wish i could tell you how i felt" (right now)

All are incorrect because I should be spelled with a majuscule. As for the verb forms, all are correct and convey the same present meaning. Wishes are hypothetical statements and take the subjunctive: I wish I were smart; I wish it would rain; I wish I could dance.

Tell is a reporting verb; since it has been put into a 'past' verb form (for hypothetical present), the reported verb regresses; however, if the condition still obtains at the present, the speaker/writer has the option of retaining the present tense: I told you what this is/was (right now-- the object exists in the present).

If you wish to cast the wish into the past: I wished I could have told you what this is/was.

Re: when you have done

Marius Hancu — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 04:17:48 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
This is not a mandatory rule. It's something which is often done (thus, to me, optional), per Swan.

Which part is not mandatory? I may have misunderstood, but I'm assuming the rule you are referring to is: will cannot be used in a when clause where when is an adverbial conjunction. I don't believe there's anything that's not mandatory about it.

------
tense simplification in subordinate clauses
present instead of future

Present tenses are often used instead of will + infinitive to refer to the future in subordinate clauses.

This happens not only after conjunctions of time like when, until, after before, as soon, but in most other subordinate clauses -- for instance after if, whether, and on condition that, after question words and relatives and in indirect speech.

Swan, Practical English Usage, p. 583
-------
As you can see, he says often, not mandatorily or always.

Re: raise and rise

Lcchang — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 04:05:07 GMT

So, as long as there is something discovered in the past and refered to a permanent truth, it still can be used with simple present tense. This reminds me of another sentence I found in my textbook regarding "indirect speech". Please see the following sentence.

He said he will come on the eighth.

If the eighth of the month is still in the future at the time of speaking, the verb shift is not always neccessary.

But, if I write:

He said he would come on the eighth.

Can you tell if the eighth of the month has already gone? Please advise.

LCChang

Reported Speech Strikes Back - Episode I - Advanced Help Needed

Forum_mail — Tue, 30 May 2006 19:17:54 GMT

While doing some reported/indirect speech stuff (again!) lots of questions has come to my mind. Here are some of them.

1/ 'I never eat meat', (Bill said/explained) -> turns into -> Bill said/explained (that) he never ate meat. - This is the normal way in which most of us would transform the sentence, isn't it?

BUT!

a) Is there a change of meaning between the direct and indirect form? To my liking, the second one, the transformed one, implies that Bill never ate meat before but nowdays maybe he likes it... My impression is, that after we transform the sentence, it somehow represents THE PAST, not the present or general truth. Thus... point b)

b) Thus, I guess, that it would be wiser to say "Bill said that he never EATS meat" because he probably doesn't eat meat to this day, it's a permanent truth, general one... but I don't know whether I'm right or wrong, that's why I'm asking. Is it possible ? Is it grammatically correct?

I guess it's pretty similar like in the following sentence : "Jack said he loves Mary" and the explanation taken from G. Leech A-Z Grammar says that he probably still loves her, it's like a general truth...

c) Is this sentence "Bill said he never ate meat" translated as : "Bill never eats meat" or "Bill never ate it (in the past!) ?

2/ A very similar problem emerges with 'I'm waiting for Ann' (said Jack). And, again, the normal way of transforming this sentence would be : "Jack said (that) he was waiting for Ann".

a) I'm wondering... Does this sentence imply that Jack was waiting for Ann some day in the past or does it imply that he was waiting for her "in the present" I don't know if you guys know what I mean... The thing is that I'd rather say something like "Jack said he is waiting for Ann" IF, is have to stress it, IF the situation still takes place in the present tense. BUT...

b) But if, for instance, on the next day, Bill, who is a friend of Jack, would report what Jack has told him, he would say "Jack said he was waiting for Ann". Am I right? If yes, why. If no, why?

3/ What's the difference between :

I would like to see it VS I should like to see it.

4/ According to Thomson & Martinet's Practical English Grammar the following sentece would have a different meaning if we change the tense from simple past to past perfect in reported speech :

I'm quoting form T&M :

He said, 'I loved her' must become "He said he had loved her" as otherwise there would be a change of meaning. But - He said, 'Ann arrived on Monday' could be reported "He said Ann arrived (<had> is optional here) on Monday"

This is presented in the point 309 "Past tenses sometimes remain unchanged"

a) I don't understand why there would be a change of meaning in the first sentence. Why do I HAVE to use past perfect? And why in the second one it's optional?

b) When past tenses remain past tenses without changing into past perfect? T&M gives examples but no explanmation :/

c) And, again, could we say "He said he loves her" instead of "He said he loved her" ? Why? Why not?

d) Does "He said he loved her" imply that he, possibly, doesn't love her anymore?

5/ Which ones are correct? And which ones are TOTALLY incorrect?

a) He says he knows her. VS

b) He said he knows her. VS

c) He said he knew her. VS

d) He says he knew her.

I guess that :

a) is ok, such a sentence may be heared when a person reads a letter from somebody outloud.

b) seems fine to me... implies that he knew her, he knows her and will know her...

c) ok? seems to imply that he used to know her but now he doesn't because maybe she's abroad or something...

d) correct? Again, a person reading a letter from somebody could say "Jack says/writes that he knew Jany... (bla bla bla... when they were at school, for instance) ?

6/ 'Who lives next door' ->

a) He asked who lived next door

b) He asked who lives next door

Again, a) sounds to me like, somebody who lived next door doesn't live there anymore... But maybe I'm wrong...I don't know.

When I was younger, I used to have no problems with reported speech, I just adhered to the rules of tense shifts and things seemed to be ok. But nowdays after years of learning and studying English, I'm having lots of doubts...

Help me please :- )

PS. Let me know whether I did some mistakes or not in this post, it's essential to me, not just the reported speech, but other things too.