3

SITUATION: A year ago, my friend had some financial problems of which his relatives were aware.

Why do we say:

They believed he was in debt.

but:

He was believed to be in debt instead of: He was believed to have been in debt?

Or do we?

F.E.
  • 6,208
jules
  • 1,503
  • We do say that, it's a passive form of believed he had been. I'm sure this has already been covered though. – z7sg Ѫ Feb 06 '14 at 22:03
  • Your question seems to involve the topic of backshifting. If you search on that topic, you might get the info that you are looking for. :) – F.E. Feb 06 '14 at 22:30
  • Here's a link to a post that I wrote on backshifting: http://english.stackexchange.com/a/149167/57102 – F.E. Feb 06 '14 at 22:38

2 Answers2

3

Simply because He was believed to have been in debt would refer to a time before the time when the thinking was going on: they believed (a year ago) that he had been (two years ago) in debt. (This is sometimes called the pluperfect, to distinguish it from the normal past tense.) Strictly speaking, there is no implication one way or the other whether he had paid off the debt in the meantime; but if he had not, it would be both simpler and more informative to use the normal past.

Even more simply: Consider your first sentence: you did not say they believed he had been in debt.

Tim Lymington
  • 35,168
  • I do not agree with your first sentence. The people doing the thinking, one year ago, were not referring to any position two years ago. 'He was believed to have been in debt'means, in debt there and then, i.e. one year ago. Had they, one year ago been referring to their beliefs as to the position two years ago they would have said 'It was believed that he had been in debt'. That last is the pluperfect. – WS2 Feb 07 '14 at 00:34
  • 2
    @WS2, I disagree. Not with the last part (that is undoubtedly a pluperfect, but also an inflected form, which is what is avoided in the question); but “He was believed to have been in debt” does to me say flat out that the time of debt is earlier than the time of belief. Otherwise, “He was believed to be in debt” would be used. Similarly, “He was expected to have returned at four” indicates that he had not, and the statement is spoken after four o'clock, while “He was expected to return at four” is spoken before four o'clock, and he has not yet returned at the time of speech. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Feb 07 '14 at 01:05
  • @JanusBahsJacquet I would have to agree that 'He was believed to be in debt' could not be misunderstood.( In the real world one would always supply clarification, in any case. e.g. 'He was believed, at that time, to be in debt'.) But if 'He was believed to have been in debt' refers to a position prior to the believing taking place, why would anyone ever use the pluperfect in this context? I don't think the 'returning at 4 o'clock' is a parallel case. None of the 'debt' examples supply any indication as to the current position of 'his' finances. – WS2 Feb 07 '14 at 09:21
  • 1
    @WS2, nor does the returning bit—it only indicates the time of return relative to the time of expectation, not to the present. Why anyone would use the pluperfect? Same reason anyone would use the past, as in “It was believed that he was in debt”. The infinitive construction is simply an alternative way to phrase the sentence; there’s no particular reason to use either over the other, except style, rhyme, and mellifluence in a given context. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Feb 07 '14 at 09:57
2

'to be in debt' means that he hasn't come out of debt.

'to have been in debt' means that he has come out of debt.

Leon Conrad
  • 3,910
  • No. 'He was believed to be in debt' means that people believed he hadn't come out of debt.

    'He was believed to have been in debt' means that people believed that, though he had been in debt, he had come out of debt.

     – Edwin Ashworth Feb 07 '14 at 00:22
  • @EdwinAshworth 'He was believed to have been in debt' does not tell me anything about where people think he is now. It merely says that at that time people thought he was in debt. He might or might not still be in debt. That is irrelevant. But 'He was believed to be in debt', is simply an incorrect thing to say if you are talking about what people at some point in the past were thinking. – WS2 Feb 07 '14 at 00:28
  • I'll address your final sentence, which is more obviously wrong. 'He was believed to be suffering from the early stages of multiple sclerosis' is not incorrect, and neither are 'He was believed to be in Montevideo' nor 'was believed to be in trouble', so how can it be said that 'He was believed to be in debt' isn't an allowable restatement of 'People believed him to be in debt'? – Edwin Ashworth Feb 07 '14 at 09:28
  • ... These are catenations with the to-infinitive. The use of 'to be' indicates the situation obtaining at the time specified by the main verb (is thought to be / was thought to be / will be thought to be). The use of 'to have been' indicates a time before that specified by the main verb, and usually concluded by the time the main verb specifies (is thought to have been / was thought to have been / will be thought to have been). – Edwin Ashworth Feb 07 '14 at 09:34
  • @EdwinAshworth Elsewhere on this posting I have accepted, with Janus, that 'he was believed to be in debt' is valid, and cannot mean anything other than he was in debt at that time. Apologies for not mentioning that to you. However, still troubling me is the difference in meaning between 'He was believed to have been in debt' and 'It was believed that he had been in debt'. It seems that Janus, at least and possibly you also, are effectively saying they mean the same thing. – WS2 Feb 07 '14 at 10:22
  • Yes. For most of 1937, until the true facts were released in November, he was believed to have been in debt the previous year – which, had it been true, would have disqualified him from taking office in 1936. – Edwin Ashworth Feb 07 '14 at 10:30
  • So the rule is that in front of an infinitive, in the passive voice, the perfect replaces the pluperfect and the present the perfect? – WS2 Feb 07 '14 at 11:17