Catherine: “If I lost my job, I would be in serious trouble.”
[color=red]1. Catherine said that if she lost her job, she would be in serious trouble. [color=red]2. Catherine said that if she had lost her job, she would have been in serious trouble.
“If I were rich, I would buy a mansion in Beverly Hills,” she said. [color=red]3. She said (that) if she were rich, she would buy a mansion in Beverly Hills. [color=red]4. She said (that) if she had been rich, she would have bought a mansion in Beverly Hills
Hi,
When we report a second conditional sentence in indirect speech, back-shifting is optional or necessary?
I meant tense changing.
Thank you.
I was wondering whether the following might be helpful.
MONDAY
Mona: Why the sad look on your face?
Cathy: The boss says that she has to fire 100 employees.
If I LOSE my job, I WILL be in big trouble.
Mona: So true!
TUESDAY
Tony: What did Cathy tell you yesterday?
Mona: She said that if she LOST her job, she WOULD be in big trouble.
Tony: That goes for all of us!
WEDNESDAY
Mona: Why the big smile on your face?
Cathy: The boss told me that I could keep my job.
Mona: Lucky you!
Cathy: Absolutely! If I HAD LOST my job (I DID NOT), I WOULD HAVE BEEN in big trouble.
Mona: Let’s go out tomorrow to celebrate. My treat.
THURSDAY
Tony: I saw Cathy smiling a lot yesterday. What’s up?
Mona: Oh, she said that if she HAD LOST her job, she WOULD HAVE BEEN in big trouble, but she didn’t. In fact, the boss complimented her on being an outstanding employee. We’re going out to celebrate her good luck tonight. Want to join us?
Tony: Well, …
Mona: It’s my treat.
Tony: In that case, of course, I do!
There’s no such thing as a stupid question when you’re trying to understand something, Screen.
You are right in your suspicion that number 2 is incorrect.
I am not very intelligent, but I was intelligent enough to guess that someone would question that sentence. But I decided to go ahead with it anyway because I wanted the conversation to sound natural.
Here in the United States, native speakers in conversation often ask questions such as:
Why the sad look on your face? (= Why do you have that sad look on your face?)
Why the big smile on your face?
Want to join us? ( = Do you want to join us?)
Screen and Foreigner: I know NOthing about your first languages, but I suspect that you guys also leave out “unnecessary” words in informal conversation. Am I right?
Dear James
I beg to differ with you in one aspect. You have very succinctly answered the question by referring first to Type I conditional in the conversation, then turning it into Type II in the indirect speech and then, again, turning that (indirect Type II) into Type III.
But the question, in my opinion, is different. What would be the position if one were to recast your own example the following way?
MONDAY
Mona: Why the sad look on your face?
Cathy: The boss says that she has to fire 100 employees.
If I LOST my job, I WOULD be in big trouble. (supposing that she said it so)
Mona: So true!
TUESDAY
Tony: What did Cathy tell you yesterday?
Mona: She said that if she … her job, she … in big trouble.
Tony: That goes for all of us!
If you mean me by AP, I would say that the tense structure may remain unchanged, though it is in conflict with Type I changing into Type II while reporting. In similar circumstances we need to exercise ‘willing suspension’ of ambiguity.
I have some information that confirms your view that two answers are possible.
It comes from a great book called THE GRAMMAR BOOK / AN ESL / EFL TEACHER’S COURSE (1983) by Mesdames Celce-Murica and Larsen-Freeman (page 462). I think that it would be an invaluable addition to your library (the newest edition, of course).
Pam says: I WANTED to go to Albany to visit friends last week.
[What did Pam say to you yesterday?]
Answer #1: Pam said that she WANTED to go to Albany to visit friends last weekend. ( = It’s possible to say that she wanted to and subsequently she did go.)
Answer #2: Pam said that she HAD WANTED to go to Albany to visit friends last weekend. ( = With the past perfect in the report clause the implication is very strong that she did not go – i.e., she had wanted to go, but she didn’t.)
The above explanations above are entirely those of the two scholars.
So – just as you said – “If I LOST my job, I WOULD BE in deep trouble” could be reported in two ways:
(a) Cathy said that if she LOST her job, she WOULD BE in deep trouble.
(b) Cathy said that if she HAD LOST her job, she WOULD HAVE BEEN in deep trouble.
IF (If!) we accept the brilliant analysis of those two scholars, then maybe (MAYBE!) (a) implies a real possibility that she did lose her job and (b) implies that – luckily – she did not lose her job.
I notice you always write “i” in lieu of “I”.
I respectfully suggest that you should write it in BLOCK CAPITALS, for capitalised “I” is prefered in standard/formal English usage.
Sooner or later, moderators would tell you about it, I think.
