backshifting a conditional

Question

From Practical English Usage by Swan (3rd Ed., 278.5):
-----------------------
278 indirect speech (5): advanced points

5 conditionals

After past reporting verbs, sentences with if and would are usually unchanged.
DIRECT: It would be best if we started early.
INDIRECT: He said it would be best if they started early.

However, if-sentences that refer to 'unreal' situations can change as follows.
DIRECT: If I had any money I'd buy you a drink.
INDIRECT: She said if she had had any money she would have bought me a drink. (OR She said if she had any money she would buy...)
-----------------------

(1) Do you agree with Swan's treatment of indirect speech?

(2) If you were to say/write the indirect speech of the 'unreal' version, which would you prefer, the former or the latter?

(3) If you say yes to (1), why would you treat the 'unreal' situations differently?

Laborious · Accepted Answer

Actually, back-shifting is always correct if it's a matter of changing a 'direct speech' sentence into its 'indirect' version.

INDIRECT: He said it would be best if they started early. (This seems to be the 'indirect' version of the 'direct' speech sentence "It will be best if we start early".)

DIRECT: It would be best if we started early.

- I'd report that this way: He/she/they/we had said it would have been best if they/we had started early. But If they haven't started yet, i.e., the action is still in the future at the time of reporting, I'd report that this way, instead: They/he/she said it would be best if they/we started early. (we haven't started yet).

Fivejedjon · Answer

LaboriousActually, back-shifting is always correct if it's a matter of changing a 'direct speech' sentence into its 'indirect' version.

I don't agree. I agree with Swan.

LaboriousDIRECT: It would be best if we started early. - I'd report that this way: He/she/they/we had said it would have been best if they/we had started early.

The direct speech allows the possibility of their starting early. The indirect speech suggests that they did not start early.

JungKim · Answer

Thanks, fivejedjon.
You have answered question (1). Could you please go ahead and answer (2) and (3)?

Fivejedjon · Answer

JungKimHowever, if-sentences that refer to 'unreal' situations can change as follows.DIRECT: If I had any money I'd buy you a drink. INDIRECT: She said if she had had any money she would have bought me a drink. (OR She said if she had any money she would buy...)

If I reported the direct statement, I would probably say "She said that if she had had any money she would have bought ...". "She said that if she had any money she would buy ..." suggests that the direct speech might be"If I have any money I will buy ...".

Note Swan's words 'usually' and 'can change' (my emphasis). We are in a rather grey area here; there are no absolute rules. I give a few examples below. In the first set of examples, the original words are said in the morning and reported in the afternoon of the same day.

"I'll go to the beach if it's fine tomorrow."
She said that she'll go to the beach if it is fine tomorrow.
She said that she'd go to the beach if it was fine tomorrow.

"I would go to the beach Ii it were fine tomorrow"
She said that she would go to the beach if it were fine tomorrow.

In the following examples, the words are reported a week later.

"I'll go to the beach if it's fine tomorrow."
She said that she'd go to the beach if it was fine the next day.

"I would go to the beach if it were fine tomorrow"
She said that she would go to the beach if it were fine the next day. (The reporter does not tell us if it was fine/if she went)

She said that she would have gone to the beach if it had been fine the next day. (The reporter suggests she did not go).

Note that the final sentence (in blue) would also report:

"I would have gone to the beach if it had been fine the next day."

Henry74 · Answer

May I also ask something about this?

fivejedjonShe said that she would go to the beach if it were fine the next day. (The reporter does tell us if it was fine/if she went)

I don't understand what the reporter tells us. Did you perhaps mean to say "..does not tell us.."?

H.

Fivejedjon · Answer

Henry74May I also ask something about this?fivejedjonShe said that she would go to the beach if it were fine the next day. (The reporter does tell us if it was fine/if she went)I don't understand what the reporter tells us. Did you perhaps mean to say "..does not tell us.."?H.

Yes. I accidentally omitted the word not. I am sorry if that confused you. I have now edited my post to correct the slip.

JungKim · Answer

Thank you to fivejedjon for the detailed answer.
I got a couple of follow-up questions to your answer. Let me quote the first relevant portion of your answer and then present a question directed to the quoted portion. And then move on to the second portion.

fivejedjonIn the first set of examples, the original words are said in the morning and reported in the afternoon of the same day. [omitted] "I would go to the beach [if] it were fine tomorrow" She said that she would go to the beach if it were fine tomorrow.

This may seem on a side note, but actually it's the core issue of the whole question. So I'm going to go ahead and ask this question first. You seem to have presented the direct speech ("I would go to the beach if it were fine tomorrow.") as representing an unreal situation, given the use of "were". But how could you possibly label tomorrow's weather as being unreal when you won't be able to know for sure what it's going to be like tomorrow? If you believe that the direct speech is possible, could you please provide some context where it could be considered possible?

fivejedjonIn the following examples, the words are reported a week later."I'll go to the beach if it's fine tomorrow."She said that she'd go to the beach if it was fine the next day."I would go to the beach if it were fine tomorrow" She said that she would go to the beach if it were fine the next day. (The reporter does not tell us if it was fine/if she went) She said that she would have gone to the beach if it had been fine the next day. (The reporter suggests she did not go).

(Emphasis mine.)

Now, assuming that the direct speech ("I would go to the beach if it were fine tomorrow.") is possible under certain context, this is what you're saying: The indirect speech without backshift "does not tell us if it was fine/if she went", whereas the one with backshift "suggests she did not go."

But shouldn't the indirect speech simply be reporting the exact meaning of the direct speech? If the indirect speech changed the meaning of the direct speech, is it still considered a legitimate indirect speech of the corresponding direct speech? If the two versions of the indirect speech mean two different things, then shouldn't only one of the two versions be the legitimate indirect speech?

Unfortunately, because I don't know the answer to my first question yet, I have no way of determining which of the two versions is the legitimate indirect speech.

Fivejedjon · Answer

One question at a time:

JungKimou seem to have presented the direct speech ("I would go to the beach if it were fine tomorrow.") as representing an unreal situation, given the use of "were". But how could you possibly label tomorrow's weather as being unreal when you won't be able to know for sure what it's going to be like tomorrow? If you believe that the direct speech is possible, could you please provide some context where it could be considered possible?

I did not present it as 'unreal'.

The construction usually known as the 'second conditional' can be used of a counterfactual present situation, or to a future situation that, however unlikely, is presented as possible.

If it were fine now, I would be at the beach. It is not fine. I am not at the beach.
If it is fine tomorrow, I will go to the beach. There us a reall possibility of fine weather tomorrow and of my going to the beach.
If it were fine tomorrow, I would go to the beach, There is a less real possibility of this. Only context can tell us how unreal the speaker considers the possibility to be, but it exists

JungKim · Answer

So I gather that you meant the direct speech to mean 'remote' possibility but not counterfactuality.

Based on that, could you please go ahead and answer my second question in my prior post?

Fivejedjon · Answer

JungKimBut shouldn't the indirect speech simply be reporting the exact meaning of the direct speech? If the indirect speech changed the meaning of the direct speech, is it still considered a legitimate indirect speech of the corresponding direct speech? If the two versions of the indirect speech mean two different things, then shouldn't only one of the two versions be the legitimate indirect speech?

Given that there is no past past perfect in English, it is not possible to backshift a past perfect. As I pointed out previously, it is not always possible to backshift a modal form, because a modal perfect conveys a different level of reality.

These two points alone ensure that backshifting is not always possible and that, as I pointed out previously, two or more different direct utterances can be reported by just one indirect statement:

Mary: "I saw him" - Mary said that she had seen him
Mary: I have seen him" - Mary said that she had seen him.
Mary: I had seen him" - Mary said that she had seen

Frank: "I will retire in 2017:" - Frank said he would retire in 2017.
Frank: I would retire in 2017 if ..." Frank said he would retire in 2017 if ..."

backshifting a conditional

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions