I thought I had

[albeit]

I don't believe that the expansion of such points of view is relevant to ESL and EFL. It's not practical.

I read your opinions on that, I think more than once, and I agree fully. Nothing in my discussions on this issue would suggest that I seekt to include "anylish" in any ESL program.

[PROESL]

I read your opinions on that, I think more than once, and I agree fully. Nothing in my discussions on this issue would suggest that I seekt to include "anylish" in any ESL program.

I didn't saying anything about what should be included in programs. I said I don't believe the expansion of such points of view is relevant to ESL and EFL. Now, please, do not attempt to build a case against something that someone did not say or did not set forth as any sort of assertion or claim. This is not about paraphrasing or saying something in a different way. It's an interesting device to attempt to use, but it doesn't work with me.

[albeit]

No, I have made no contradictory statements. Speaking of "would" and its application to past time has nothing to do with how I've compared the two sentences that you insist must be reported speech. You should refrain from telling one what one seems like or does not seem like.

This has nothing to do with "the two sentences", Pro, and I certainly didn't insist they were anything. I think if you check, you'll find I used words like, "they could hold different meanings but ... "

The two statements that I believe were contradictory were;

1. "I know how reported speech works" [might not be the actual wording but that's the full gist of it]

AND

2. "[would] only works out to be the past of [__] in certain instances, and these instances are often reported speech".

http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/as...upposed-5.html

If you know how reported speech works how can you have said what you said in 2.?

[PROESL]

This has nothing to do with "the two sentences", Pro, and I certainly didn't insist they were anything. I think if you check, you'll find I used words like, "they could hold different meanings but ... "

The two statements that I believe were contradictory were;

1. "I know how reported speech works" [might not be the actual wording but that's the full gist of it]

AND

2. "[would] only works out to be the past of [__] in certain instances, and these instances are often reported speech".

http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/as...upposed-5.html

If you know how reported speech works how can you have said what you said in 2.?

Once again, this is not relevant to the topic of simple past versus past perfect as it has been discussed in this thread. I find it confounding that one would bring such information into this discussion. It's not related.

It's pretty simple. Here it is: In the two sentences that you are talking about, I showed how using the past perfect as opposed to the simple past could affect meaning given information that a speaker and a listener both know about. The assertion that the past perfect would, therefore, be a better choice is something you seem to not agree with. Furthermore, for some reason, you would like me to agree with you. I don't agree. So just as others have agreed to disagree, it would be best if we agreed to disagree.

[albeit]

Once again, this is not relevant to the topic of simple past versus past perfect as it has been discussed in this thread. I find it confounding that one would bring such information into this discussion. It's not related.

As you wish. I've moved it to,

http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/as...-i-had-15.html

[BobK]

I thought we had finished.

Me too. This issue has been sputtering on for too long. I don't like quashing debate, but I'm closing this thread because it's generating more heat than light.

b