Search results for 'tag:Tenses tag:Indirect speech' matching tags 'Tenses' and 'Indirect 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: I thought a spider is/was an insect

CalifJim — Thu, 08 May 2008 17:13:26 GMT

Should I use "is" or "was"?

I thought a spider is/was an insect, but it is in fact an arachnid.

Use "was". This is not reported speech! (And the first part is not a universal truth anyway; it's a universal falsehood!) This is one of the most typical patterns in the English language: I thought it was ..., but (actually) it is ...

In the sentence in blue, "is" is completely and totally impossible in normal idiomatic speech -- except:

I thought (to myself) [pause] "A spider is an insect".

Compare. The first sentence below has indirect speech, but the others don't. The last sentence has a main clause in the present, thus allowing either tense in the subordinate clause.

My professor said that spiders are (were also possible) insects! I didn't think they were (are not possible). I think he is (was also possible) wrong.

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: Reported Speech

miriam — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:36:47 GMT

Hello. Sorry to hear you're feeling uncomfortable with this type of activity. But you're not alone: I would be, too!

The sentences lack context, which makes it difficult to tell when tense changes are necessary and when they are not (among other things).

There is one sentence that is wrong without a doubt: # 7. The sentence in direct speech uses the present continuous, and the reporting verb (added) is in the past tense, so it really makes no sense to use a construction with "will" to report that statement. You should either keep the same tense (present continuous) or change to past continuous. Sentence #6 has a similar mistake. The decision, however, is sometimes difficult to make since I have no idea when the original statements were made, when they are/were reported, and, also important, whether what was said still applies at the time of reporting or it doesn't.

The rest of the sentences seem OK in general, except for a few details, such as dates and time references, and person changes. For example, in # 8 you retain "a year ago" instead of changing it to some other expression like "the year before" or "the previous year". Again, though, that would depend on several variables, the moment of reporting among them. Also, in #10 you changed "our customers" to "his customers" (why not "their" customers?).

And you're not consistent with verb changes. In # 1, you shifted from the present perfect to the past perfect. But then, in other sentences, such as # 2, you retained the tense from the sentence in direct speech.

I know this isn't much help, but it will -hopefully- point you in the direction of your mistakes and/or inconsistencies.

When we're taught indirect speech, we're told to remember the "golden rule": change verb tenses. But the truth is that it always depends on the context and the content itself, on the people speaking and the time of speaking.

Give these sentences another try, please, and let's see what happens?

Miriam

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: tense in reported speech

Heidita — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:11:52 GMT

Infinik wrote:
Viceidol wrote:

direct speech: He said, "John is honest."

inrect speech: He said that John was honest.

I think both sentences are perfectly OK. The second one means that, John was honest at the time of speaking. So it does not imply whether John is honest now or not, we just can't tell from this sentence alone.

I don't agree with this. Indirect speech follows a certain pattern. Present simple passes to past simple. Grammatically speaking, "he said that John is honest" would be incorrect.

cheers

Re: Past or Future

Philip — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:41:05 GMT

Yogician wrote:

What I was reading a novel, I came across a sentence which raised doubt that wheter it is talking about the Past Tense or Future Tense. The sentence is -

"When he was grown up he would go and see it."

As per the novel, a child was thinking about an item which he would like to see when he would grow up. In my opinion it should be written in future tense. Then, what is the criteria in using 'was' in the above sentence, that was also followed with 'would'.

It's similar to direct and indirect speech. He said, "when I am grown up I will go see it" ~ He said that when he was grown up he would go see it. I hope this helps.

Re: Tigers in India

Clive — Thu, 24 May 2007 22:22:03 GMT

Hi,

India has far fewer tigers living in the wild than had been thought, initial results from a major new study suggest.

The Wildlife Institute of India census showed tiger numbers falling in some states by two-thirds in five years. A final report is due out in December.

India's last major survey in 2002 put tiger numbers at 3,500. That was far too optimistic, say conservationists.

They blame poaching and urbanisation for the decline and say the authorities must do more before time runs out.

A century ago India was believed to have tens of thousands of tigers.

'Depressing'

The new survey, conducted over two years, was the most ambitious ever undertaken to try to stem the decline in the population of India's tigers.

It found the largest decline in the tiger population to be in the central state of Madhya Pradesh, where the number of big cats has gone down from 710 to 255 in the past five years.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.India has far fewer tigers living in the wild than in Africa. [ Just an indicative sentence or rather a sentence to compare Indian tigers and African tigers.]

This is not correct. It suggests that India has some tigers living in Africa. ie India has far fewer tigers living in the wild than (India has living) in Africa.

It should be India has far fewer tigers living in the wild than Africa.

2. He said he had been to India. [ This is indirect speech.]

3. He said, ''He has been to India''. [ This is direct speech.] Yes, but I suspect the writer was trying to say He said, ''I have been to India''.

My question is on the first sentence of the above article.

India has far fewer tigers living in the wild than had been thought, initial results from a major new study suggest.

The words 'had been thought' look like it is a past perfect sentence; however, it doesn't qualify to be a past perfect tense. You should push one action before the other to make a past perfect sentence. The Past Perfect is used to show that the 'thinking' action preceded the publication of the initial study results. ie People thought that before the results became available, but not after that.

What is the grammatical nature of the sentence in question? A more conventional organization of this sentence would be

Initial results from a major new study suggest (that) India has far fewer tigers living in the wild than had been thought.

The clause order in the original is just a bit more uncommon. It's the kind of clause order that newspaper headline writers like to use. It gives more prominence to the new fact than to its source.

Best wishes, Clive

Tigers in India

Rex — Thu, 24 May 2007 21:25:09 GMT

India has far fewer tigers living in the wild than had been thought, initial results from a major new study suggest.

The Wildlife Institute of India census showed tiger numbers falling in some states by two-thirds in five years. A final report is due out in December.

India's last major survey in 2002 put tiger numbers at 3,500. That was far too optimistic, say conservationists.

They blame poaching and urbanisation for the decline and say the authorities must do more before time runs out.

A century ago India was believed to have tens of thousands of tigers.

'Depressing'

The new survey, conducted over two years, was the most ambitious ever undertaken to try to stem the decline in the population of India's tigers.

It found the largest decline in the tiger population to be in the central state of Madhya Pradesh, where the number of big cats has gone down from 710 to 255 in the past five years.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.India has far fewer tigers living in the wild than in Africa. [ Just an indicative sentence or rather a sentence to compare Indian tigers and African tigers.]

2. He said he had been to India. [ This is indirect speech.]

3. He said, '' he has been to India''. [ This is direct speech.]

My question is on the first sentence of the above article.

India has far fewer tigers living in the wild than had been thought, initial results from a major new study suggest.

Re: Direct Narration and Indirect Narration

Yoong Liat — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:51:02 GMT

Jackson6612 wrote:
But there must a tangible reason for doing this. Saying that the verb has/have has to be changed to had to be consistent with announced is not a solid reason for using had left instead of have left in that sentence.

Actually direct and indirect speech is not a difficult subject if you know certain rules.

He says, "I like chicken" should be reported as He says that he likes chicken.

If the reporting verb is 'said', the verb 'like' becomes 'liked'.
He said, "I like chicken" should be reported as He said that he liked chicken.

So, He said, "I have finished my homework" should be reported as He said that he had finished his homework.

There is no solid reason. It's just a shift in tenses.

I don't think I can explain more clearly.