0
OrtonR Posted 11 years ago
Grammar

Tense

I have read in grammar book that if the main verb is in the past tense then the verb in the subordinate clause will also be in past tense. I tried to follow this rule I get to read from other places, such as news articles, with sentences not following this rule like this one below:

- "Scientists and broadcasters said that they have captured footage of an elusive giant squid roaming the depths of the Pacific Ocean, showing it in its natural habitat for the first time ever."

But we usually convert present perfect to past perfect tense in reported speech. Then why not in the example given above ?

Thank you !
  

Top answer

ortonR But we usually convert present perfect to past perfect tense in reported speech. We don't have to if what is reported is still valid at the time of reporting.

— Fivejedjon

  • ortonR But we usually convert present perfect to past perfect tense in reported speech.
  • We don't have to if what is reported is still valid at the time of reporting.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

14 Answers
0
ortonRBut we usually convert present perfect to past perfect tense in reported speech.
We don't have to if what is reported is still valid at the time of reporting.
0
0
Recently I read on FOX news paper -
"Ukraine wants the United Nations to brand Russia a terrorism sponsor amid ****** clashes between pro-Russian separatists and Ukrainian government troops.
The Ukrainian ambassador to the UN told Fox News he plans to submit a draft resolution asking the UN General Assembly to formally label “Russia as a sponsor of terrorism."
Ambassador Yuriy S
0
0
You can, If the reporting verb is past tense, then backshifting is (almost) never wrong.
0
0
Sir, I was discussing this issue with one of my friend and he told me that " if the meaning is still clear without the back shift then the back shift becomes optional".
But I didn't agree to what he said.
Was his reason correct ?
0
0
ortonRif the meaning is still clear without the back shift
Could you post an example of the sort of thing you're talking about?

It seems to me that most people could figure out the meaning of just about anything like this whether it's with or without a backshift. I'm not convinced that clarity of meaning is a crucial aspect of backshifts.

C
0
0
ortonRWas his reason correct ?
Yes, roughly. That is what I said in my last post.

(Cross-posted with CJ, whose response I prefer to my own.)
0
0
Sir, you said that if what is reported is still true at the time of reporting then back shift is optional but my friend suggested that if the meaning is clear without backshift then it becomes optional. I suppose both the reasons differ. So how come my friends reason correct ?
0
0
A : I have finished my work.
B : He said that he had finished his work.

My friend said that if there was no back shift then also it would be right because it would be clear that he would have said "I have finished my work."

But I find his reason absurd. Is his reason right or wrong ?
0
0
ortonRBut I find his reason absurd. Is his reason right or wrong ?
If, at the time of reporting, the work has not been finished, then it is acceptable not to backshift. If, however, the work has been finished, then backshifting is obligatory.
0
0
Yes I totally agree that if the statement is still valid at the time of reporting then there is no need to backshift. So can I say that the reason given by my friend was not correct ?

One thing more, is backshift obligatory if the reporting words are still true at the time of reporting ?

Thank You !
0

Related Questions