Please explain the difference

[jswarraich]

Original statement:

Prime Minister Tony Abbott today responded to the situation saying it was still not known who were behind the attack and what the motive of the gunmen was.

Is it wrong if we write it in the following way:
Prime Minister Tony Abbott today responded to the situation saying it is still not known who is behind the attack and what the motive of the gunmen is.

 

[tedmc]

Prime Minister Tony Abbott today responded to the situation saying it is still not known who is behind the attack and what the motive of the gunmen is.

Generally the past tense is used in reported speech but in this case, the facts are still true at the moment, so the present tense is acceptable.

not a teacher

 

[Rover_KE]

jswarraich, please note that a better title would have been who is behind/who were behind.

Extract from the Posting Guidelines:

'Thread titles should include all or part of the word/phrase being discussed.'

 

[Roman55]

I am not a teacher.

I would say, '…who was behind the attack', not '…who were'.

 

[Matthew Wai]

A teacher on this forum said that the tense backshift is optional in such a case.
So I could use 'is' instead of 'was' in the above sentence.

Not a teacher.

 

[Tdol]

Both the present and the past are fine. I prefer was to were.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Because of "gunmen" I would use "were".

 

[oldbei]

Hey Rover_KE,

"Not a teacher" is in my signature. I carry it everywhere. That's not good enough?

 

[Roman55]

Because of "gunmen" I would use "were".

I am not a teacher.

It is not known who was behind the attack. The 'gunmen' are mentioned at the end of the sentence, and since it is not known who was behind the attack, it isn't the gunmen. The gunmen perpetrated the attack, but we don't know who was behind it.

 

[Rover_KE]

Hey Rover_KE,

"Not a teacher" is in my signature. I carry it everywhere. That's not good enough?

Sorry, but no. It needs to be in plain sight in every post.

Many members choose to uncheck 'View signatures' in order to 'remove extraneous clutter from posts'.*

*See Forum Actions — General Settings — Thread Display Options — View Signatures.

 

[MikeNewYork]

The gunmen themselves could well have been behind the attack.

 

[Roman55]

I am not a teacher.

They may well have been, but nobody knows who was. Would you really say, '…it was still not known who were behind the attack'?

I don't know any native speaker who would use 'were'. It's like asking, 'Who are there?' when there's a knock at the door.

 

[MikeNewYork]

It is nothing like that at all. I don't know of any native speaker who would come up that analogy.