heard, said etc.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nightmare85

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
German
Home Country
Germany
Current Location
Germany
Hello,
I would like to know which versions are correct:
(It's present - like a normal conversation.)
He told me you have a new job.
He told me you had a new job.

I heard you are a girl.
I heard you were a girl.

They said this is a good idea.
They said this was a good idea.


I learned that "I thought you were a teacher." is correct, that's why I believe that all #2 are correct. :)

Cheers!
 

adrs

Member
Joined
May 11, 2009
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Spanish
Home Country
Spain
Current Location
Spain
Hello,
I would like to know which versions are correct:
(It's present - like a normal conversation.)
He told me you have a new job.
He told me you had a new job. :tick:

I heard you are a girl.
I heard you were a girl. :tick:

They said this is a good idea.
They said this was a good idea.
:tick:

I learned that "I thought you were a teacher." is correct, that's why I believe that all #2 are correct. :)

Cheers!

I think all number 2 are correct!

Instead you could say:

- He told me: " You have a new job!"
- They said : "This is a good idea!"
 

sarat_106

Key Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Oriya
Home Country
India
Current Location
India
Hello,
I would like to know which versions are correct:
(It's present - like a normal conversation.)
He told me, “you have a new job.” Direct speech
He told me that I have a new job. Indirect speech (the pronoun needs to be changed and the quoted statement is still true)
He told me you had a new job.
Incorrect
He told me that I had a new job (correct)

I heard,"you are a girl."
I heard you were a girl. correct

They said, "this is a good idea."
They said that was a good idea. (pronoun to be changed)

I learned that "I thought you were a teacher." is correct, that's why I believe that all #2 are correct. :)

Cheers!
“I thought you were a teacher." is correct if you are certain that the person concerned is no longer a teacher.
Normally, the tense in reported speech is one tense back in time from the tense in direct speech. Here the direct speech is:
I thought, “you are a teacher.”
However, we do not need to change the tense if the reporting verb is in the present, or if the original statement was about something that is still true or a general truth, e.g.
We explained that it is very difficult to find our house.
Columbus knew that the world is round.
Your 1st example sentences is changed accordingly
 
Last edited:

Nightmare85

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
German
Home Country
Germany
Current Location
Germany
Thanks.

@sarat:
He told me that I have a new job. Indirect speech (the pronoun needs to be changed and the quoted statement is still true)
He told me you had a new job.
Incorrect
He told me that I had a new job (correct)

I cannot understand why you changed you to I.
Let's imagine I meet you somewhere and talk to you.
Then I say to you: "My father told me that you had a new job."
I really don't see the sense of I, please explain.

“I thought you were a teacher." is correct if you are certain that the person concerned is no longer a teacher.
But in my case the person is still a teacher.
Let's say he pretends to be a teacher, and you find out that he's no teacher, and that he was no teacher.
Then you go to him and say "I thought you were a teacher, but now I know you aren't a teacher."

Thank you again :up:

Cheers!
 

sarat_106

Key Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Oriya
Home Country
India
Current Location
India
Thanks.

@sarat:
He told me that I have a new job. Indirect speech (the pronoun needs to be changed and the quoted statement is still true)
He told me you had a new job.
Incorrect
He told me that I had a new job (correct)

I cannot understand why you changed you to I.
Let's imagine I meet you somewhere and talk to you.
Then I say to you: "My father told me that you had a new job."
I really don't see the sense of I, please explain.

“I thought you were a teacher." is correct if you are certain that the person concerned is no longer a teacher.
But in my case the person is still a teacher. Then change of tense is optional.
Let's say he pretends to be a teacher, and you find out that he's no teacher, and that he was no teacher.
Then you go to him and say "I thought you were a teacher, but now I know you aren't a teacher." This is correct.

Thank you again :up:

Cheers!

When we use 'tell' we say who was being spoken to (i.e. with an indirect object):In such cases the pronoun in the direct speech needs to be changed to match with the indirect object; as:
He told me, “you are tired”
He told me that I was tired.
My father told me, 'You play the piano very well.'
My father told me that I played the piano very well.

In your sentence ‘you’ being the subject of the subordinate clause "you had a new job' refers to ‘me’ which looks odd.
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
Hello,
I would like to know which versions are correct:
(It's present - like a normal conversation.)
He told me you have a new job.
He told me you had a new job.

I heard you are a girl.
I heard you were a girl.

They said this is a good idea.
They said this was a good idea.


I learned that "I thought you were a teacher." is correct, that's why I believe that all #2 are correct. :)

Cheers!
This seems to be a popular question lately. Some native speakers even suggest that both forms are correct (and presumably equally good).
To me, the form without tense backshifting sounds very odd. I would suggest you backshift unless you have a good reason not to. The fact that something is still true is not a good reason. (It may be logically, but not linguistically.)
Columbus knew that the world was round is correct.
* I thought you are a teacher. Wrong, in all contexts, in my opinion.
 

Nightmare85

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
German
Home Country
Germany
Current Location
Germany
Guys, I have an important question.
I'm currently discussing the "reported speech" with some friends and there are disagreements.
One site says this:
In some cases the backshift of tenses is not necessary, e.g. when statements are still true.
John: "My brother is at Leipzig university."
John said that his brother was at Leipzig university. or
John said that his brother is at Leipzig university.
Do you agree with that?

Does this "rule" (in case it's true) affect all the example sentences I gave?
He said that he has a new job. -> He still has the new job.
:?:

Cheers!
 

corum

Banned
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Hungarian
Home Country
Hungary
Current Location
Hungary
Hello,
I would like to know which versions are correct:
(It's present - like a normal conversation.)
He told me you have a new job. :tick:
He told me you had a new job. :tick:

I heard you are a girl. :tick:
I heard you were a girl. :tick: (ambiguous; odd)

They said this is a good idea. :tick:
They said this was a good idea. :tick: (ambiguous)


I learned that "I thought you were a teacher." is correct, that's why I believe that all #2 are correct. :)

Correct but ambiguous.

Cheers!

Let us see what one of the most authoritative and most comprehensive (1800 pages) grammar book of the English language has to say in this matter.
Quirk et al., (1985): p1026,
14.31. Backshift in indirect speech
The reporting verb may be in the present tense for communications in recent past time, as in:

Joan tells me she is going to the airport in an hour's time. [1]
She says she was too busy to join us last night. [2]

The present tense is also used for reports attributed to famous works or authors which have present validity, as in:

The Bible says there is no end to the writing of books. [3]
Chaucer somewhere writes that love is blind. [4]

The choice of verb form in the reported clause depends on the time reference of the verb. Thus, the verbs in [1], [3], and [4] exemplify the state present, while 'was' in [2] refers to a time previous to the time of reporting as well as to the time of the original utterance.
Verbs of cognition may also be used in the reporting clause in the present tense:
I know they do not care.
Sylvia thinks Paul went to Lancaster last night.

When the time reference of the original utterance (or mental activity) no longer applies at the time that the utterance (or mental activity) is reported, it is often necessary to change the tense forms of the verbs. Such a change of verb forms in indirect speech is termed backshift. The resulting relationship of verb forms in the reporting and reported clauses is known as the sequence of tenses. The changes can be illustrated best if we postulate an exact correspondence for the reporting clauses of direct and indirect speech

DIRECT SPEECH BACKSHIFTED INDIRECT SPEECH
(i) present --> past
(ii) past --> past or past perfective
(iii) present perfective --> past perfective
(iv) past perfective --> past perfective

Thus, if the present deictic references in the direct speech become past deictic references in the indirect speech, there is a corresponding shift of verb forms into the past, or if necessary into the past perfective. Examples of each part of the rule are:
"I am being paid by the hour," she said. --> She said she was being paid by the hour. [5]
"The exhibition finished last week," explained Ann. --> An explained that the exhibition finished/had finished the preceding week. [6]
"I have been waiting for you over an hour," she told him. --> She told him that she had been waiting over an hour for him. [7]
"I had studied French for four years at school," I said. --> I said that I had studied French for four years at school. [8]

The choice in [6] represents the usual choice of simple past in place of a past perfective when the context makes the relative time reference clear, in this instance by the use of 'the preceding week'. There is no change in [8] because the past perfective already expresses 'past in the past' and no further backshift to 'past in the past' can be expressed. As [5] and [7] illustrate, the rule is not affected by combinations of the simple and perfective forms with progressive and passive forms.
Backshift is optional when the time-reference of the original utterance is valid at the time of the reported utterance, cf [5], [7] and [8]. Thus the shift is obligatory in [9], but optional in [10]:

"I am a citizen not of Athens, but of the world," said Socrates. -->
Socrates said that he was a citizen not of Athens, but of the world. [9]

"Nothing can harm a good man," said Socrates. -->
Socrates said that nothing can/could harm a good man.

Since the statement by Socrates in [9] deals with what is now past, it has to be reported by application of the backshift rule. The statement in [10], on the other hand, is a universal rule which, if it was true for Socrates' lifetime, should also be true today; the backshift rule is therefore optional.
Here are other examples where present forms may be retained in indirect speech:
Their teacher had told them that the earth moves around the sun. [11]
Sam told me last night that he is now an American citizen. [12]
I heard her say that she is studying BA. [13]
A Yale professor has said that the Brooklyn Bridge is the most majestic embodiment of the American experience of the road. [14]
They thought that prison conditions have improved. [15]
I did not know that our meeting is next Friday. [16]
She said that they are being discriminated against. [17]
The waiter told me that lunch is now being served. [18]

In all these sentences, past forms may also be used, by optional application of the backshift rule. Sentence [11] has the simple present in its timeless use, whereas the verbs in the subsequent sentences have a limited time-reference. The appropriateness of the present forms [12 - 18] therefore depends on their reference at the time of the reported utterance. For example, if at that time Sam had changed his citizenship, or if his citizenship was then in doubt, an appropriate form of [12] would be, for example:

Sam told me in 1970 that he was then an American citizen.

Similarly, if a long time had elapsed between the original utterance reported in [15] or if there was doubt as to its present validity, the past perfective would be used:

They thought that the present conditions had changed. [15a]

Again, if [18] were reporting what the waiter had said not five minutes ago but five days ago, it would read:

The waiter told me that lunch was then being served.

NOTE:
[a] If the indirect speech itself contains a subordinate clause, then the verb of that subordinate clause may be in present tense because of current validity even though both the main verb of the sentence and the superordinate verb are in the past:

They reminded us that they had frequently denied that the drug has any therapeutic value.
She thought she had told me that breakfast is served between seven and ten.

Backshift from simple past to past perfective is necessary when the simple past in the indirect speech may be misinterpreted as representing a simple present:
She said, "I was married (,but my husband died last year)," -->
She said that she had been married.

Contrast, where there is no possibility of misinterpretation:
She said,"I was married in church." -->
She said that she was/had been married in church.

[c] Backshift is normal if the proposition in the indirect speech is considered to be false:
The ancients thought that the sun moved around the earth, but from the time of Galileo it was known that the reverse is true.

[d] Since the simple past in indirect speech may represent either simple past or simple present of direct speech, it may give rise to ambiguity where both interpretations are plausible:

A She told me the game started at seven.
B: It did/does not

14. 32 Other changes in indirect speech
...

Guys, I have an important question.
I'm currently discussing the "reported speech" with some friends and there are disagreements.
One site says this:
Do you agree with that?

Does this "rule" (in case it's true) affect all the example sentences I gave?
He said that he has a new job. -> He still has the new job.
:?:

Cheers!

Backshift is optional when the time-reference of the original utterance is valid at the time of the reported utterance,
 

TheParser

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
***** NOT A TEACHER *****

Good morning, Nightmare.

(1) You have received many great posts.

(2) My little (vey llittle) contribution is:

Tom: I am very sick.

Mona: I am so sorry. I hope you get well soon.

***** Next day

Joe: I saw you and Tom talking yesterday. What did he say?

Mona: Oh, he said that he WAS sick.

(We followed the rule and used the past. But some people might think that he is NO LONGER sick. That he is well now.)

Mona: Oh, he said that he IS sick.

(We broke the rule, but everyone now knows that Tom is STILL sick.)

***** Have a nice day!
 

BobK

Harmless drudge
Staff member
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
This seems to be a popular question lately. Some native speakers even suggest that both forms are correct (and presumably equally good).
To me, the form without tense backshifting sounds very odd. ...

I think the problem is due to the tension between speech and writing. Speech came first (both in children and in peoples). Speech is punctuated by grunts, changed stress, gestures (facial and otherwise).... I wouldn't advise the use of 'She said you are a teacher' in writing. But if I hear the words 'She + said + you + are + a + teacher' I mentally supply the quotation marks - this isn't a correction it's just something that happens automatically in the head of a native speaker.

I agree, though, that 'I thought you are a teacher' is wrong, in all contexts (at least, I can't think of any ;-)).

b
 

Nightmare85

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
German
Home Country
Germany
Current Location
Germany
Hello guys and thanks for the support.

Unfortunately, I'm clueless here:
me said:
No one says that "She said that water boiled at 100 degrees Celsius." is wrong.
him said:
This is not wrong in only special case when you have some particular water in mind or particular experiment etc. But if, for example, 'she' is a physics teacher explaining something to the children in a class, the child later has to say "She said that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius" and saying otherwise would be incorrect.

I still believe you would need quotation marks.
She said: "Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius"

I think I have problems to differ speaking from writing.

Cheers!
 

corum

Banned
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Hungarian
Home Country
Hungary
Current Location
Hungary
She said, "Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius."

The boiling point of water is a universal rule which, if it was true yesterday, should also be true today; the backshift rule is therefore optional.

She said that water boiled at... :tick:
She said that water boils at... :tick:
 

corum

Banned
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Hungarian
Home Country
Hungary
Current Location
Hungary
I agree, though, that 'I thought you are a teacher' is wrong, in all contexts (at least, I can't think of any ;-)).

b

Interesting. That is not what Quirk says. In fact, there are situations when:

I thought you were a teacher. :cross:
I thought you are a teacher. :tick:

and it is fairly logical, at least it is to me.

If the referent of 'you' is still a teacher a the time of reporting, the application of the following backshift rule is justifiable:
backshift is optional when the time-reference of the original utterance is valid at the time of the reported utterance.

Optionality in the application of the backshift rule means the simple past in indirect speech (I thought you were a teacher) may be misinterpreted as representing a past tense in the corresponding direct speech (because the hearer has no information about whether the speaker resorted to the backshift or not). Thus, "You were a teacher (before you became a pilot)," I thought could be the corresponding direct speech variant, when in fact what was meant was this: "You are a teacher," I thought [= I thought you are a teacher (and it turned at that you really are)].
 

TheParser

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
***** NOT A TEACHER *****

Nightmare, I may be 100% wrong, but I can think of a situation when "I thought you're a teacher" is "correct." When you are being sarcastic or very rude.

Tom: Excuse me, teacher, how much is 2 + 2?

Teacher: 2 + 2 is 3.

Tom: I don't think so.

Teacher: Oh, I'm sorry. It's probably 5.

Tom: I thought you're a teacher. Am I wrong? Teachers are supposed to know how much 2+ 2 is. I suggest you find another profession.

***** Have a nice day!
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
Tom: I thought you're a teacher. Am I wrong?
Tom is using "you're" as a contraction for "you were".

I'll concede that in some places on earth, this pattern may be used. However, for all the complaints I used to get along the lines of "What do you mean he's dead? I thought you were a doctor!", I cannot ever recall hearing "are".

In fact, I think this case - raising a hypothetical possibility that I am/was not a doctor - actually requires "were" - as my well-spoken but refractory patients instinctively understood.
 

Nightmare85

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
German
Home Country
Germany
Current Location
Germany
Okay, I think I have understood why we can mix tenses.
(After a long discussion on some other forums.)

"She said that Canberra is the capital of Australia"
"The teacher said that phrasal verbs are very important."
"Mandy said that the sun rises in the East."

I believe it's because those facts are always true/possible.
(Normally, it will always be the case that Canberra is the capital, phrasal verbs are important, and the sun rises in the East.)

At least this is how I see it.
"I thought you were a teacher." -> Could be over some day - realistically seen.

Can someone say:
"You thought you can stop me with your weapon?" if he's 100% sure that you will never be able to stop him with that weapon :?:

Cheers!
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
Can someone say:
"You thought you can stop me with your weapon?" if he's 100% sure that you will never be able to stop him with that weapon :?:
Cheers!
I think you have all the available evidence now from several threads to make a decision about this. This is my last word on the matter (you'll be pleased to know, because I'm really not sure you can handle the truth. :)):

If the hearer has tried to stop the speaker and failed, the speaker would say, "You thought you could stop me with your weapon?
If the hearer has not yet tried to stop the speaker, the speaker would say, "You think you can stop me with your weapon?
There is no circumstance under which the speaker would say the sentence you've written if he is speaking normal native English.
As far as the 100% certainty claim goes, that doesn't happen in human affairs, and even if it did, he would use the "think/can" version.
 

euncu

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Turkish
Home Country
Turkey
Current Location
Turkey
Well, when reported speech is learned (by books or by teachers), it is learned the way Raymott's been defending. But I think most non-native speakers like me (and I assume, like Nightmare85, as well) intevsively make use of (mostly) American tv shows to improve our English. And, on those shows, we frequently see that native-speakers speaks the way Nightmare85's been repeatedly asking about. I, for one, from time to time, think to myself whether the rules for reported speech has been altered and there is no tense backshifting anymore. Thus, I believe, this is the sole reason that Nightmare85's been coming up with more examples that confusing him.
 

corum

Banned
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Hungarian
Home Country
Hungary
Current Location
Hungary
Well, when reported speech is learned (by books or by teachers), it is learned the way Raymott's been defending.
:roll:

I am not entirely sure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top