0
JungKim Posted 12 years ago
Grammar
Backshift with a complex original utterance
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL), p156, says that the following reported speeches are possible:
[25]
i I am leaving before he returns. [original utterance]
ii She said she was leaving before he returned. [backshifted + backshifted]
iii She said she was leaving before he returns. [backshifted + non-backshifted]
iv She said she is leaving before he returns. [non-backshifted + non-backshifted]
CGEL also says that the combination of "non-backshifted + backshifted" is not possible: *She said she is leaving before he returned.
The reasoning set forth in CGEL is this: Once you forgo the option of backshift and opt for "non-backshifted" tense, you may not go for backshifted tense.
If we switch the order of the subordinate clauses, which of the following is correct?
(1) She said that before he returned she is leaving. [backshifted + non-backshifted]
(2) She said that before he returns she was leaving. [non-backshifted + backshifted]
[25]
i I am leaving before he returns. [original utterance]
ii She said she was leaving before he returned. [backshifted + backshifted]
iii She said she was leaving before he returns. [backshifted + non-backshifted]
iv She said she is leaving before he returns. [non-backshifted + non-backshifted]
CGEL also says that the combination of "non-backshifted + backshifted" is not possible: *She said she is leaving before he returned.
The reasoning set forth in CGEL is this: Once you forgo the option of backshift and opt for "non-backshifted" tense, you may not go for backshifted tense.
If we switch the order of the subordinate clauses, which of the following is correct?
(1) She said that before he returned she is leaving. [backshifted + non-backshifted]
(2) She said that before he returns she was leaving. [non-backshifted + backshifted]
Top answer
Neither sounds good. I don't think that fronting the subordinate clause allows the same guidelines to be followed.
- Neither sounds good.
- I don't think that fronting the subordinate clause allows the same guidelines to be followed.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
9 Answers
0
Neither sounds good. I don't think that fronting the subordinate clause allows the same guidelines to be followed.
00
Mister MicawberNeither sounds good. I don't think that fronting the subordinate clause allows the same guidelines to be followed.And do you find [25iii] natural?
00
0
Mister MicawberYes, that is possible if he has yet to return.I understand why [25iii] is possible.
Under the same context where he has yet to return, however, why is it (2) is not possible?
00
I suppose it is this: 'CGEL also says that the combination of "non-backshifted + backshifted" is not possible'. Anyway, it does not sound possible to me.
00
Thanks.
How about "before" is replaced with "after"?
(3) She said that after he returned she is leaving. [backshifted + non-backshifted]
(4) She said that after he returns she was leaving. [non-backshifted + backshifted]
Do you find either of these possible?
My guess based on your feedback so far is tha
How about "before" is replaced with "after"?
(3) She said that after he returned she is leaving. [backshifted + non-backshifted]
(4) She said that after he returns she was leaving. [non-backshifted + backshifted]
Do you find either of these possible?
My guess based on your feedback so far is tha
00
JungKimDo you find either of these possible?These seem reasonable:
She said that after he returns she is leaving.
She said that after he returned she was leaving.
00
I agree that they both are possible.
But what about (3) and (4)?
Are either of them possible?
But what about (3) and (4)?
Are either of them possible?
00
JungKimBut what about (3) and (4)?Are either of them possible?Those are the sentences that I just repaired.
0
Related Questions