cubezero3
Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Chinese
- Home Country
- China
- Current Location
- China
Hello, everyone.
We know, as a general rule, when we change a sentence from direct speech into indirect speech, we have to move the tenses in the quotes backwards, if the main clause is in past tense.
How should we make the change if a direct speech contains a hypothetical conditional sentence?
My guess is that we treat it as we would do to other ordinary direct speeches. Here are some examples where second conditional sentences appear in direct speeches.
Then when it comes to third conditional sentences, I am not quite certain whether it's still correct to follow the same route.
The last two sentences especially make me feel uncomfortable. I know that if in the quoted part of a direct speech the past perfect is used, we have to keep the same tense even when the main clause is in past tense, for we can't shift the past perfect backwards any further. But I have never seen sentences like these before.
What would you think of this question? I would be so glad to hear your comments.
Many thanks
Richard
We know, as a general rule, when we change a sentence from direct speech into indirect speech, we have to move the tenses in the quotes backwards, if the main clause is in past tense.
She said:"I am twenty years old."
She said that she was twenty years old.
How should we make the change if a direct speech contains a hypothetical conditional sentence?
My guess is that we treat it as we would do to other ordinary direct speeches. Here are some examples where second conditional sentences appear in direct speeches.
She says:"If I were you, I wouldn't do it."
She said that if she were me, she wouldn't do it.
She said:"If I were you, I wouldn't do it."
She said that if she had been me, she wouldn't have done it.
Then when it comes to third conditional sentences, I am not quite certain whether it's still correct to follow the same route.
She says:"If I had been there to help you, you wouldn't have lost the battle."
She says that if she had been there to help me, I wouldn't have lost the battle.
She said:"If I had been there to help you, you wouldn't have lost the battle."
She said that if the had been there to help me, I wouldn't have lost the battle.
The last two sentences especially make me feel uncomfortable. I know that if in the quoted part of a direct speech the past perfect is used, we have to keep the same tense even when the main clause is in past tense, for we can't shift the past perfect backwards any further. But I have never seen sentences like these before.
What would you think of this question? I would be so glad to hear your comments.
Many thanks
Richard