Could have been is a past form of could be?

[sky3120]

"He said that it could have been wrong"
VS.
"He said that it could be wrong"



I have learned that "could have been" is also a past form of "could be" so I think that the first sentence is grammatically correct, considering tense agreement and if we convert it to direct version, we can write it like this:

He said, "it could be wrong"
=He said that it could have been wrong.

What do you teachers think about it?

[tom3m]

NOT A TEACHER

He said it that it could have been wrong.

Supposing that the function of 'could have' here cannot be replaced with 'was able to' since the verb has an epistemic function (I think), we know that the original direct version was - as you wrote:

He said: 'It could be wrong'.

I am convinced that we do not transform the 'preterite' modal verbs when indirect (reported) speech occurs.
That is why I do not think that your first sentence is correct.
The latter, however, seems fine to me.

I might be wrong (I do apologise in advance in that case ) so I hope teachers explain better and are more concise than me.

[Barb_D]

I think it's more simple than that.

A: Peter, look at this sign. It says the show starts at 7, but doesn't it start at 7:30?
Peter: Well, the sign could be wrong.
He said that the sign could be wrong.

A: Peter, the program says the show starts at 7. I was sure when we checked the Web site before we left that it said it started at 7:30
Peter: It's always possible the Web site was wrong.
Peter said that it could have been wrong.

[sky3120]

He said, "I am waiting for Ann."
-> He said that he was waiting for Ann.

He said, "This sign could be wrong"
->He said that this sign could have been wrong.

The past form of 'am' is 'was' and the past form of 'could be' when used for 'guessing' is 'could have been' as far as I know, but instead of it, I think people tend to use 'could' in indirect narrations. What do you think? Thank you.

[bhaisahab]

He said, "I am waiting for Ann."
-> He said that I was waiting for Ann.

He said, "This sign could be wrong"
->He said that this sign could have been wrong.

The past form of 'am' is 'was' and the past form of 'could be' when used for 'guessing' is 'could have been' as far as I know, but instead of it, I think people tend to use 'could' in indirect narrations. What do you think? Thank you.

No. He said, "I am waiting for Ann" - "He said that he was waiting for Ann".

[Barb_D]

If you are still standing in front of the sign, you would not back shift. Your friend who wasn't paying attention asks what Peter just said, and you say "He said that the sign could be wrong."

Once you tell the story later, even if you're just a few paces inside the theater, the you can back shift.

[sky3120]

A: Peter, the program says the show starts at 7. I was sure when we checked the Web site before we left that it said it started at 7:30
Peter: It's always possible the Web site was wrong.
Peter said that it could have been wrong.[/QUOTE]


Now I understood your point, so what you mean is that "was" becomes "had been" but because of "could", meaning "possible" there, it becomes 'could have been'?

I hope that I understood you right. Thank you.

[philo2009]

Both sentences are possible, depending on (as others have explained) the relative time reference.
Technically, constructions such as 'could have Ved' are perfective, rather than true 'past' tenses.

[sky3120]

Technically, constructions such as 'could have Ved' are perfective, rather than true 'past' tenses.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you, but they mean the past in some sentences, right?

[philo2009]

Yes, a perfective modal construction certainly can have a past reference.