+0
Is any of the following incorrect?

She told me that he came home late that night.
She told me that he had come home late that night.
1 2 3
Comments  (Page 2) 
That means both versions are correct.
Thank you all of you.
English 1b3I don't think this is right. You're meant to change the tense (of the subordinate) to the past perfect.
It may be that in a classroom exercise converting direct speech into reported speech your teacher may want you to practice using the past perfect, and therefore want you to backshift the past to the past perfect in all cases, but consider: You can't report an event until after it has happened, so there can't be any possible confusion about the time order even when the backshift is not used. Emotion: wink

CJ
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
CalifJimYou can't report an event until after it has happened, so there can't be any possible confusion about the time order even when the backshift is not used.
I thought there could be some in certain cases. Consider these, please:

- I heard that he went there. (Can't it also mean that he goes there regularly, like in "I hear he goes there"? I didn't put any time marker on purpose so the meaning can only be picked up from the structure used itself.)

- I heard that he had gone there. (It no longer happens; it was probably a single action.)

Michal
Backshifting is not even required in direct speech if it's clear from the context which event happened first.

I (had) expected to pass the test but I didn't. (logically the expecting happened before you took the test)
I think the key phrase here is "in certain cases." I agree that in everday speech or writing, the backshift is usually not necessary, but here are some other examples of when it works and clarifies:

When I arrived, he had already left.

By Wednesday, when her ship sailed, he had tried four times to apologize.

Before her sister's wedding, she had never met the groom.

In all three of these sentences, the backshift portion refers clearly to an event that (had) occurred before a named time that is also in the past.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
MichalSI thought there could be some in certain cases. Consider these, please:

- I heard that he went there. (Can't it also mean that he goes there regularly, like in "I hear he goes there"? I didn't put any time marker on purpose so the meaning can only be picked up from the structure used itself.)

- I heard that he had gone there. (It no longer happens; it was probably a single action.)
You are focusing on something a bit different from what I was talking about. In either case your hearing of it could not have happened before the phenomenon you heard about happened (or used to happen), whether what you heard about was habitual or not. That was my point.

Your point has to do with the ambiguity of aspect in the part that tells what happened, completely independent of the hearing of it, which I agree is present in your examples -- in both of them, actually.

CJ
Thank you kindly for the clarification! Emotion: smile
CalifJimin both of them, actually.
Oh yes! Emotion: smile
What is present in both examples?
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
I think CJ meant that an ambiguity was present in both of them. Both can mean more than one thing. Emotion: smile
Show more