 
|
 |
Do we always need to backshift the verb in reported speech? Some argues that where the reporting verb is in the past tense, then we should move the other verbs back a tense automatically. However, this, IMO, can lead to sentences that make little sense. When we are reporting facts or things which are still in the future at the time of reporting, I can see no need whatsoever to backshift unless you really want to. There are also cases when shifting the past to the past perfect doesn't seem appropriate. Which of the following make more sense? 1) She said Elizabeth II is the queen of England. Elizabeth II is queen at the time of reporting. 1) She said Elizabeth I was the queen of England. Elizabeth I has been dead for hundreds of years at the time of reporting. I would go for number 1 in both cases. 3 CommentsLeave a comment | |
|
| ^ Back to Top | Site News | Site Map | Link to Us | About | Staff | Terms of Use |
|---|
Copyright © 2002 - 2008 UsingEnglish.com - All rights reserved
Willbut
September 5, 2003 5:56 PM
There are also forms you do not or cannot change, like past modals and past perfects.
walaa alhity
March 17, 2004 2:13 PM
every thing about indirect speech. please help me
thanks in advance
tdol
March 17, 2004 3:54 PM
Walaa,
Try here:
http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/indirect-speech.html