the nominative + infinitive

Question

Hi there,I wonder why the author suggests using 'past simple + perf. infinitive' construction to rephrase the following sentences:1. People believed that the hurricane killed over a thousand people. -&gt; The hurricane was believed to have killed ...2. People knew that the suspect visited the murdered man on the day of his death. -&gt; The suspect was known to have visited ...a. The verbs in the subordinate clauses of the original sentences are in the past simple to indicate what people belived or thought at the time of these actions. Therefore, the present infinitive should be used for hearsay reporting, i.e.The hurricane was believed to kill ...The suspect was known to visit ...b. Had the original sentences been stated as ''1. People believed that the hurricane HAD killed over a thousand people" and " 2. People knew that the suspect HAD visited the murdered man on the day of his death", I wouldn't have anything against 'past simple + perf. infinitive' in the hearsay reporting...Thanks for your comments.

Fivejedjon · Accepted Answer

People know that hurricanes kill ... - Hurricanes are known to kill ...
People know that hurricanes killed/have killed - Hurricanes are known to have killed ...

AlpheccaStars · Answer

Paul Evdokimova. The verbs in the subordinate clauses of the original sentences are in the past simple to indicate what people belived or thought at the time of these actions. Therefore, the present infinitive should be used for hearsay reporting, i.e.The hurricane was believed to kill ...The suspect was known to visit ...

No. The action of killing and visiting are past events, anterior to the knowledge and beliefs about the events. The perfect infinitive, the past form of the infinitive, is correct.

The present infinitive is incorrect.

Paul Evdokimov · Answer

AlpheccaStarsThe action of killing and visiting are past events, anterior to the knowledge and beliefs about the events.

It may have been true, but - one more time -

I. why the original sentences contain 'past simple + past simple' construction and not 'past simple + past perfect' construction, i.e. ''1. People believed that the hurricane HAD killed over a thousand people" and " 2. People knew that the suspect HAD visited the murdered man on the day of his death"?

II. what would be your version of the hearsay reporting of 1. People believed that the hurricane HAD killed over a thousand people" and " 2. People knew that the suspect HADvisited the murdered man on the day of his death"?

Paul Evdokimov · Answer

fivejedjon, your examples prove my point although they are not exactly relevant: the original sentences refer to people' s knowledge in the past.

The sticking point is the timeline: I insist on the fact that the events (people believed and hurricanes killed) refer to (nearly) the same period, thus requiring 'past simple + present infinitive' construction. It corresponds to your first sentence.

If the events in the 'that-clause' took place prior to beliefs and knowledge, 'past simple + perfect infinitive' is more relevant (or 'present simple + past simple' in your second example).

Fivejedjon · Answer

Paul Evdokimov insist on the fact that the events (people believed and hurricanes killed) refer to (nearly) the same period, thus requiring 'past simple + present infinitive' construction.

You can insist all you like, but that does not make it true.

In your original sentence, People believed that the hurricane killed over a thousand people, we are talking of one particular hurricane. That being so, the people's belief that was reported was "The hurricane killed over a thousand people", not "The hurricane kills over a thousand people".

This can be reported as People believed that the hurricane (had) killed over a thousand people. Despite what some course books and student grammars suggest, We do not always backshift from the past simple to the past perfect in indirect speech. It is clear that the killing happened before the belief.

In the BELIEVE + infinitive construction, we do need to make the order of events clear:

1. The hurricane was believed to have killed ... - People believed that the hurricane (had) killed ... - People believed "The hurricane killed ...".
2. The hurricane was believed to kill ... - People believed that the hurricane killed ... - People believe "The hurrican kills ...".

#2 clearly does not work here. Compare these exaamples with:

In the past, people believed "Hurricanes kill sinners"
In the past, people believed hurricanes killed sinners.
In the past, hurricanes were believed to kill sinners.

Paul Evdokimov · Answer

fivejedjonIt is clear that the killing happened before the belief.

I wouldn't be so sure... Nowadays, we can witness any disaster unfolding in front of our eyes; videos being sent on the fly; reporters reporting the death toll simultaneously, making people guess, believe and wonder even before the disaster dies away.

fivejedjonDespite what some course books and student grammars suggest, We do not always backshift

We should... to avoid ambiguity at least.

fivejedjon#2 clearly does not work here.

Still don't buy my assumption that people can believe in certain figures of casualties while watching 'hurricane breaking news' on Fox???

Fivejedjon · Answer

Paul EvdokimovI wouldn't be so sure... Nowadays, we can witness any disaster unfolding in front of our eyes; videos being sent on the fly; reporters reporting the death toll simultaneously, making people guess, believe and wonder even before the disaster dies away.

Then the people would believe "The hurricane is killing thousands of people". This would be reported as The hurricane was believed to be killing ... not the hurricane was believed to kill ...

Paul EvdokimovfivejedjonDespite what some course books and student grammars suggest, We do not always backshift We should... to avoid ambiguity at least.

There's normally no ambiguity. People normally take the most likely interpretation, not he least likely.

Paul Evdokimov · Answer

Legit.<img class='emoticon' style='Width:19px;Height:19px;' data-delaysrc='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/15.gif' src='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/15.gif' alt='Emotion: geeked'/>

CalifJim · Answer

Paul Evdokimovb. Had the original sentences been stated as ''1. People believed that the hurricane HAD killed over a thousand people" and " 2. People knew that the suspect HAD visited the murdered man on the day of his death", I wouldn't have anything against 'past simple + perf. infinitive' in the hearsay reporting...

Quite so. Nevertheless, the meanings of the original sentences are taken by the large majority of native speakers to be the meanings of your versions with 'had killed' and 'had visited', so the transformation is done as if the original had the hads.

CJ

the nominative + infinitive

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions