You are welcome to answer questions posted in the Ask a Teacher forum as long as your suggestions, help, and advice reflect a good understanding of the English language. If you are not a teacher, you will need to state that clearly at the top of your post. Please note, all posts are moderated by our in-house language experts, so make sure your suggestions, help, and advice house the kind of information an international language teacher would offer. If not, and your posts do not contribute to the topic in a positive way, they will be subject to deletion.
I am reading a book and it includes the following sentences:
The police came today and said that the fire wasn´t an accident. They asked me whether George had any enemies.
As parts of the sentences are indirect speech, why the tenses are not changed? Because, in my opinion, the original sentences in direct speech were:
Police: "The fire wasn´t an accident."
Police: "Did George have any enemies?" (George is dead)
I am reading a book and it includes the following sentences:
The police came today and said that the fire wasn´t an accident. They asked me whether George had any enemies.
As parts of the sentences are indirect speech, why the tenses are not changed? Because, in my opinion, the original sentences in direct speech were:
Police: "The fire wasn´t an accident."
Police: "Did George have any enemies?" (George is dead)
Thanks a lot!
Hanka
Well poor George is dead. He has no enemies now, so the past tense is appropriate.
and what about past perfect? The original sentence in direct speech is in past, so the sentence in indirect speech should be in past perfect, shouldn´t it?
They asked me whether George had had any enemies. AND They said the fire had not been an accident.
indirect speech 
Linear Mode
