past and present tenses - which one is this?

[albeit]

But YOU, who exist and speak in the present, are reporting a past situation, and, from a syntactic viewpoint, that is all that counts!!

In reported speech, there is no report of a past situation, Philo. There is simply a report of the speech. From both a semantic and a syntactic viewpoint that is a major difference.

When speech is reported, the only thing that is in the past is the reporting verb.

John: I'm going to go to the library.

Mary: [to Peter] What did John say?

Peter: He said that he was going to the library.

Note that the question is about what John said not what he did. The only thing that is in the past is John "saying".

'was' doesn't give any indication of any action, in fact, as we all know, no action has occurred. That's why highly educated speakers of English can and often do use 'is' because the action, whether described by 'is' or 'was' hasn't happened.

Again, just to make it clear, the backshifting that occurs is only to signal listeners that the speaker is reporting the speech as opposed to giving a direct quote.

ESLs have to operate in the world of real English so there's little use in feeding them rules that don't accurately describe how language is used.

[philo2009]

In reported speech, there is no report of a past situation, Philo. There is simply a report of the speech.
Utter rubbish! A report of the speech itself - i.e. the actual words used - is DIRECT speech. Indirect speech, by definition, consists in reporting the contents of a person's speech, to wit the action or condition (referred to here collectively as the 'situation') that was asserted by him/her at the past time in question to be, to have been or to be about to be, the case. A situation that was present relative to the past time at which it was stated is necessarily past relative to the present time of reporting and verbal tenses of the indicative mood are naturally selected on that basis. Give yourself some time and that simple, ineluctable truth will perhaps sink in.

That's why highly educated speakers of English can and often do use 'is' because the action, whether described by 'is' or 'was' hasn't happened.
I can only presume from your abysmal ignorance of tense concord that you are among that same highly educated group who consider it "correct" to say between you and I rather than between you and me...

ESLs have to operate in the world of real English so there's little use in feeding them rules that don't accurately describe how language is used.
Indeed, describing how English is used by those able to speak it correctly is precisely what I have done.

[albeit]

Albeit had written: In reported speech, there is no report of a past situation, Philo. There is simply a report of the speech.

Utter rubbish! A report of the speech itself - i.e. the actual words used - is DIRECT speech. Indirect speech, by definition, consists in the reporting the contents of a person's speech, to wit the action or condition (referred to here collectively as the 'situation') that was asserted by him/her at the past time in question to be, to have been or to be about to be, the case.
A situation that was present relative to the past time at which it was stated is necessarily past relative to the present time of reporting and verbal tenses of the indicative mood are naturally selected on that basis. Give yourself some time and that simple, ineluctable truth will perhaps sink in.

Albeit: [now sitting] I'm going to stand up.

Philo [to John] What did he say, John?

John: He said that he was going to stand up.

I'm still sitting, Philo and I expect to be for some time, so it clearly isn't "about to be, the case".

Does "was going to stand up" somehow describe my not standing up?

=============

Albeit: I'm going to go to Japan next March.

Philo [to John] What did he say, John?

John: He said that he was going to go to Japan next March.

Is this also an example of "about to be, the case"? Does "was going to go to Japan next March" somehow tell us about some past event, some past action?

===================


Albeit had written: That's why highly educated speakers of English can and often do use 'is' because the action, whether described by 'is' or 'was' hasn't happened.

I can only presume from your abysmal ignorance of tense concord that you are among that same highly educated group who consider it "correct" to say between you and I rather than between you and me...

That's a pretty silly thing to presume, don't you think? Why would you introduce this red herring?

Albeit had written: ESLs have to operate in the world of real English so there's little use in feeding them rules that don't accurately describe how language is used.

Indeed, describing how English is used by those able to speak it correctly is precisely what I have done.

No, you clearly haven't, Philo. What you've described is a set of circumstances that is so clearly out of touch with reality, it boggles the mind.

There is no Sequence of Tenses in English, the guidelines for concord are just that, mere guidelines.

If he had tried to swim the Channel, he _________________________.

Go ahead, concord it to your heart's content.

I'm still sitting, Philo, so how can that "situation that was present relative to the past time at which it was stated [be] necessarily past relative to the present time of reporting". Shall we have John report it once more?

John: He said that he was going to stand up.

I'm still sitting. John could have been parroting this report of my speech every 20 seconds for the last 20 minutes and, guess what, in that period of time I never stood up once.

If I were to stand up right at this moment, would the action of my standing up be described as,

"He was going to stand up"?

No, of course not! You know that such a suggestion would be ludicrous and yet that is what you maintain happens with reported/indirect speech?

Come on, Philo, pull the other one.

[philo2009]

Albeit: [now sitting] I'm going to stand up....

... it boggles the mind.


The only thing that boggles mine is how anyone could possibly be so linguistically challenged as to insist on a colloquial toleration - the suspension of tense concord rules - having suddenly itself become the rule, observed, allegedly, by 'educated people' (among whose number, I imagine, you presume to count yourself).

I see little to be gained by continuing this discussion. You stick to your version of "reality" and I'll stick to mine!!

EOC

[albeit]

Albeit: [now sitting] I'm going to stand up....

... it boggles the mind.


The only thing that boggles mine is how anyone could possibly be so linguistically challenged as to insist on a colloquial toleration - the suspension of tense concord rules - having suddenly itself become the rule, observed, allegedly, by 'educated people' (among whose number, I imagine, you presume to count yourself).

I see little to be gained by continuing this discussion. You stick to your version of "reality" and I'll stick to mine!!

EOC

I kinda figured that would be your response and that's fine, Philo, for you. But you have to admit that, other than ranting and stamping your feet, you've not offered anything to support your position.

Do you not find it odd that you can't address any of the points I raised? All you do is stamp your feet harder and shout a little louder.

Your measure of reality meshes not at all with reality and it's terribly unfair that students are misled by that. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language is pretty clear on this. As a teacher, you might want to check it out.