the constructions which don't change in reported speech

English as a Second Language English Vocabulary, Grammar and Idioms
1

1.John is in Warsaw now.
Betty said John was in Warsaw now.

2.I have been lecturing for a few years now.
Anna said I had been lectiring for a few years now.

Above sentences are the examples of reprted speech after: ,said’’.

But there are some constructions which don’t change in the reported speech, for example: would like to, might, as in:

3.I would like to play a game.
She said I would like to play a game.

4.I might be at home now.
She said I might be at home now.

Please tell me all the constructions which don’t change in the reported speech and why don’t they change??

Many Thanks!!!:slight_smile:

2
  1. I would not pair “now” with “was.” They don’t agree.

Betty said John is in Warsaw now.
Betty said John was in Warsaw.

The latter is fine, but it can give the impression that he was merely there at some time in the past or that you expect that he might already be gone.

  1. “Have been,” the present perfect is appropriate here. “Had been” conveys that the person was up to a certain point and no longer is. This “now” works with the present perfect because it just means “so far.”

You will not alter tense just because you used “said.” The events that follow are still governed in the same manner by time.
[i]
You have been a good friend.
She said you have been a good friend.

You are a good friend.
She said you are a good friend.

You used to like dance music.
She said you used to like dance music.

You had been accepted.
She said you had been accepted.[/i]

There are times when you will change tense, but it’s not because you used “said.” [i]

John is writing a book. (John dies next week. The following comment happens afterward. )
She said John was writing a book.

Susan said John is a lawyer.
John says he is a doctor.
Susan said you were a lawyer. (I now know this isn’t true, so I can comfortably refer to it in the past tense.)

John said he is writing a novel, which you share in the sentences below.
When I talked to him, he said was writing a novel.
After I talked to him, he said to Sally that he was writing a novel.[/i]

In the last pair, you’re confining the whole structure to the past with the introductory clauses. These sentences are likelier when you have doubt that he still is or if you are merely sharing the information as part of an account of past events.

3

Dear Mordant,
The events that follow are still governed in the same manner by time.

‘by time’ means ‘by the time’ in the sentence above?

The latter is fine, but it can give the impression that he was merely there at some time in the past…
-I don’t agree with you, because ‘was’ in:Betty said John was in Warsaw., has the present meaning ,is’ and isn’t describing the past, beacause it’s grown out of the sentence:Betty said John is in Warsaw now.

When I talked to him, he said he was writing a novel. You have missed ‘he’, right?
But if the state of writing novel is constant and haven’t changed yet, so could I write:
When I talked to him, he said he is writing a novel. or should I change to ,he was writing’ after past tense (talked) in the introductory clause?

Thank you.

4

“By time” is fine. I’m not referring to any specific time.

The Betty sentence on its own can definitely give the impression that it refers to some time in the past. “Was” is, after all, the past tense.

I can’t believe Michael died.
Alex said he was a good friend.

I thought John was in Los Angeles last year.
Betty said that John was in San Diego.

Those exchanges clearly refer to the past, and the tense in the second sentence of each matches the sentence you think can’t be confused. If your audience is there when you are informed John is in Warsaw at the moment, there will be no confusion when you offer the Betty sentence with “was.” They will already have heard the present tense used. However, if you first inform people with that sentence, it can give the impression that he is no longer there.

Thomas said that Michael Jackson was a singer.
Thomas said that Britney Spears was a singer.

Because we happen to know who these people are, we know the first sentence must refer to the past. Michael Jackson is dead. We also know that Britney is still a singer. Yet these are written exactly the same way. Without the pre-existing knowledge, the potential for confusion increases.

I apologize if you don’t know one of them. I tried to find examples that would be hard not to know.

I did miss “he.” You would use the past tense. If I weren’t giving an account of past events, knew for sure it was ongoing, and just wanted to offer the information, I would phrase it differently. “He said he is writing a novel.” “He is writing a novel.”

5

Dear Mordant, thank you for such a comprehensive explanation.

However, if you first inform people with that sentence, it can give the impression that he is no longer there.

  • Writing with that sentence, did you mean: Betty said John was in Warsaw.?
    Thomas said that Britney Spears is a singer. -could I write this sentence this way with ‘is’ because Britney’s state of being singer is constant?
6

Yes, I meant the “Betty said John was in Warsaw” sentence.

Yes, “is” is the better option for that very reason.

7

Dear Mordant,
Betty said John was in Warsaw.

Could you please tell me when above sentence means A and when B:
A= John is in Warsaw.
B= John was in Warsaw.

I’m still confused with it… Sorry.

8

I apologize for the book below. Your answer is that it all depends on the context.

“Was” means that it is no longer true, or it can imply that you doubt what was said or know for sure it’s not true.

The present tense means only that it is true and continues to be so. That’s why it’s the best choice if you know something to be true and ongoing.

So, if you use the past to refer to the present, your audience can believe the action is over or that you doubt it is true. If neither is the case, then, of course, you have confused them. If you know it to be true and ongoing, it’s obviously simpler just to use the present. Less interpretation is involved, and if the audience has no previous knowledge, the clarity is very helpful.

Past = over, possible implication of doubt, or you even KNOW it’s not true
Present = ongoing, no other implications apart from the probability that we believe it to be true

A: Where is John?
B: Betty said John was in Warsaw.
A: Is he no longer there, or do you have reason to think he is no longer there?
B: No, he’s still there. I meant that he still is, even though I said “was.” Sorry.

Do you see my point?

Or

A: Where is John?
B: Betty said John was in Warsaw, but he’s in Munich.
A: How did you know she was wrong?
B: I talked to him on the phone this morning.
(The fact that I knew Betty was wrong helped guide my choice of “was.”)

A: Where was John (last year)?
B: Betty said John was in Warsaw. (This is when it means the past for sure.)
A: So that’s where he was! Thanks for clearing that up.

vs.

A: Where is John?
B: Betty said John is in Warsaw.
A: So that’s where he is! Thanks for clearing that up.

This is easier on both parties. I know it’s not in the past. I have no reason to conclude you doubt it or know that it’s not true. I can take in the information I wanted and ask further questions based on that, or I can leave it alone. I don’t have to figure out what you meant in the first place.

For further clarification, consider these.

A: What does John do?
B: Susan said that he was a doctor (but I think he’s a lawyer). - (Past for present because of doubt)
A: Here’s John now.
B: Hey, John. Susan told me you were a doctor. Aren’t you actually a lawyer? - (Past for present because of doubt)

These are just to hammer the point home:

A: Who is John F. Kennedy?
B: Susan said he was a politician. (Traditional role of the past. We know it’s over.)
A: Oh, did he retire or something?
B: No, he was assassinated. That’s why he’s no longer (or was) a politician.

A: Who is John F. Kennedy?
B: Susan said he was a politician. (Past to refer to the present because of doubt)
A: What? Did he die or something?
B: Oh, I didn’t mean that he ceased to be one when I said “was.” I don’t think he died. I just don’t believe Susan. I think he’s really an artist.
Susan: I overheard you. And, actually, he is dead. So, you were right to say I said he was a politician, even if you used “was” for the wrong reason (ie., doubt instead of it being in the past).

A: Who is John F. Kennedy?
B: Susan said he is a politician.
Susan: No, he’s dead now.
B: Oh, then I guess I should have said she said he was a politician. Sorry. (The traditional difference between the past and present tenses is on full display.)

A: Who is Barack Obama?
B: Susan said he was a politician.
A: Oh, did he retire or something?
B: Well, really, I’m not entirely sure. That’s why I said “was.” I don’t believe he ever was a politician.
(This person is factually wrong, but you can see that doubt can guide the choice of “was.”)

A: Who is Barack Obama?
B: Susan said he is a politician. (There is no doubt that this is and continues to be true.)
A: What office does he hold?
B: He is the president of the United States.

The certainty helps move things along with fewer snags.

Hillary Clinton said she was running for president. I don’t believe her, though.
Hillary Clinton said she was running for president. But then she changed her mind.
Offering an account of the past: Hillary Clinton said she was running for president, and then the race quickly grew acrimonious.

(“Is” is entirely inappropriate for the last two sentences because these actions are clearly in the past. It is not even the present with doubt. It’s just the past.)

Hillary Clinton said she is running for president. (Her first campaign stop is next Wednesday.)

If this were a news story, I assure you that it would begin with “Hillary Clinton said she is running for president” if we knew it to be true and ongoing.

9

I need to say this. It is definitely possible to hear people use “was” for the present after said even when they’re not in doubt, but my response is based on clarity.

10

Dear Mordant, I don’t know how to thank you for your answers, patience and the time devoted to me.
Could you please tell me one more thing:
1.Jack [color=red]was in London in 2001/last Friday.
2.Kate said Jack [color=blue]was in London 2001/last Friday. or
3.Kate said Jack [color=red]had been in London in 2001/last Friday.
Are both sentences 2 and 3 acceptable with relation to sentence 1?
Or should I change past simple in sentence 1 to past perfect in sentence 3?
My grammar book shows similar sentence as a sentence 2 as a right sentence without this change.
Many thanks!