+0
Hi,

I would like to check if I interpreted the below sentences correctly.

1. "I realised it is a dog."
(Realisation occured in the past. The fact that the dog is actually a dog remains true, and will continue to be true. This fact is important to me now.)

2. "I realised it was a dog."
(Realisation occured in the past. Whether or not the dog is actually a dog NOW, is no longer important to me.)

3. "I thought your English is good."
(My thoughts on your standard of English happened in the past. Your English remains good now, and will still be good in the future.)

4. "I thought your English was good."
(My thoughts on your standard of English happened in the past. Whether or not your English is still good NOW, is no longer important to me.)

P.S. I am not sure if 1 and 3 are grammatically correct, as I seldom hear people saying them. However, they kind of make sense logically (to me) if we break up the actions of the sentence.
+0
IanKCH 1. "I realised it is a dog."
(Realisation occured in the past. The fact that the dog is actually a dog remains true, and will continue to be true. This fact is important to me now.) Yes.

2. "I realised it was a dog."
(Realisation occured in the past. Whether or not the dog is actually a dog NOW, is no longer important to me.) Yes.
The natural thing is to backshift as you do in #2. It would not be incorrect, regardless of context.
When you do not backshift, as is the case in #1, we assume you wish to make the point that the fact described continues to be important to you. Of course, it would be helpful if there were prior context to make your position clear.
You seem to realize that you're under no obligation to use present tense simply because the dog will always be a dog. Conversely, using the past tense (#2) doesn't necessarily mean that you no longer care about the animal's type.

So you could say that #1 actually gives us more information than #2 does.

3. "I thought your English is good."
(My thoughts on your standard of English happened in the past. Your English remains good now, and will still be good in the future.) This one doesn't work for me. The quality of one's English is not as intransmutable as the genus of an animal. Granted, it's sort of a gray area. Some may feel that once your English is good, it will always be good. It's arguable.
It's not like saying "I found out that Elm Street runs between Maple and Oak."

The difference between "to think" and "to find out" is important too. Unless you have context to suggest that what you thought in the past was wrong, it's better to say, "I think your English is good."

Still, with the right context, #3 might be acceptable.

But "I found out your English is good" seems to work fine. Finding out was in the past, but you imply that the English continues to be good.

4. "I thought your English was good."
(My thoughts on your standard of English happened in the past. Whether or not your English is still good NOW, is no longer important to me.) Yes.

Comments  
Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
Are you trying to fit the descriptions to the sentences, or the sentences to the descriptions?
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Well, Avangi, I am not quite sure if I understand your answer? Or is it sarcasm?

Anyway, I am asking the question because my understanding of sentences with mixed timelines is somewhat lacking.

My understanding of the present tense is that we use it if we consider something to be true now, and will continue to be true. The "something" also has to be important and relevant to me NOW.

We use past tense, when something is either completely over or when that something is no longer important or relevant to me NOW.

I merely asked the question to verify and augment my understanding.
Sorry I was not clear. I started to examine your examples, but realized I wasn't sure what you wanted.

Each example has a sentence in quotes and a descriptive explanation of its meaning in parentheses. Do you wish to correct the sentence to fit the description, or correct the description to fit the sentence?
In other words, which is primary? Which came first? (the chicken or the egg?) No sarcasm intended, although such things are certainly not beneath me.
I suppose your introductory sentence should have answered my question, but for some reason I was confused at the time.

Best wishes, - A. Emotion: smile
No problem, Avangi.

Anyway, yes, I would like to correct the descriptions to fit the sentences. The primary is the sentences. I am not sure if what I wrote in the brackets is correct.

So what do you think? Do you think my descriptions fit the sentences?
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Thanks. I'll get to it ASAP. Emotion: nodding
 Avangi's reply was promoted to an answer.
Oliver though we have meet only once in person . There seems to be a chemistry compiled with bonhomie
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.

This may kindly be approved