0

In reported speech, tenses are generally backshifted. If what was said is still true at the time of reporting then back shifting is optional. My question is, if someone doesn't backshift the tense knowing for a fact that the statement is no longer true, is that still acceptable?

For example, suppose John tells me today:

I am hungry.

Then two days later, I happen to tell my friend:

John said that he is hungry.

Even though I know that John is no longer hungry, I used the present simple tense (is). Is this usage correct?

herisson
  • 81,803
iamRR
  • 470

2 Answers2

2

If you know John isn't hungry, but you don't backshift the tense in the reported speech, then you've implied that something is true (namely that John is still hungry) when you know it isn't.

This isn't the forum to tell you whether that's wrong. Check to see if there's a stackexchange for tricky moral issues. Grammar rules aren't likely to help.

I find this site helpful in summarizing the rules for backshifting reported speech: https://www.englishclub.com/grammar/reported-speech-backshift.htm

deadrat
  • 44,678
  • In the sentence 'John said that he is hungry.' I have already used a past tense "said" then why would the sentence imply John is still hungry ? – iamRR Jun 26 '15 at 05:45
  • You have used the past tense "said" to indicated that your speech was in the past. The question isn't about your speech but about John's hunger -- is he no longer hungry or is he still hungry? And for that, we have to look for tense of the verb before "hungry"? – deadrat Jun 26 '15 at 05:55
  • My question is very simple, if John is no longer hungry then why can't I use the sentence "John said that he is hungry." Here usage of 'said' clearly implies that the situation is of past which concludes that John was hungry in the past not present. Am I missing something ? – iamRR Jun 26 '15 at 06:14
  • I'll explain it again. The usage of said implies only one thing -- that you spoke in the past. The question of whether John's state of hunger is past or possibly continuing depends on the tense of verb "to be" in the clause "that he *** hungry," where the antecedent of "he" is John. – deadrat Jun 26 '15 at 06:33
  • So you mean to say that if John is still hungry then it should be "John said that he is hungry." And if not still hungry then "John said that he was hungry." Did I get it right now ? – iamRR Jun 26 '15 at 07:01
  • Yes. ---------- – deadrat Jun 26 '15 at 07:33
  • Sorry to put this through. Just when I made my mind to back shift the tenses if the words are no longer true, I read something very strange which says ' in conversational English if one doesn't back shift the tense even if the words are no longer then it is acceptable. Confusing. Isn't it ? Here's a link to it : http://englishharmony.com/direct-vs-indirect-speech/ – iamRR Jun 26 '15 at 17:09
  • It gives an example - She told me it is not her fault.

    First the blogger mentions that 'its kinda wrong' then he says 'if you are struggling with back shifting stuff then there is no need to back shift the tense even if what is said is no longer true.'

    What would you say to it ? P.S. - I am really sorry to bring up a same question. My only simple question is if suppose I'm narrating a past incident about John and he is 'no longer hungry' then can I colloquially or in written say/write : "John said that he is hungry." with a meaning that John is no longer hungry. ?

     – iamRR Jun 26 '15 at 17:19
  • There is no need to apologize. It is difficult to both learn and explain rules that native speakers absorbed with their mother's milk. Conversational rules are always looser, partly because the person you're talking to is right there to ask you about any ambiguities. And partly because of elided words. When you say, "She told me it's not her fault," your listener will hear the echo of "She told me: 'It's not my fault'" and understand you without worrying about backshift. – deadrat Jun 26 '15 at 18:06
  • So am I to understand that if someone writes/says "John said that he is hungry." The listener/reader will make out that it means John said that " I am hungry." ? If yes then the sentence "John said that he is hungry." is perfectly valid even if John is no longer hungry. What's your take on it ? – iamRR Jun 26 '15 at 19:04
  • The sentences "John said that he is hungry" and "John said that he was hungry" are both grammatically valid ways to report hearing the words from John "I am hungry." The grammar says that when you use "is," you leave open the possibility that John is still hungry; when you use "was," you imply that John's hunger belongs to the past. Grammar alone can take you only so far. – deadrat Jun 26 '15 at 21:40
  • One more stuff !

    As you say that even if one is not back shifting the tense then also its correct because people will understand the meaning anyway.

    So if I happen to write a letter to you in which a sentence goes like -- "Yesterday John said that he is hungry."

    You see, at the time of writing a letter John is not still hungry but I used 'is' because you said that people will understand the meaning anyway then by this logic it should mean that usage of 'is' is perfectly correct ? Isn't it ?

    Please just a last help, I hope ! Thank you !!

     – iamRR Jun 29 '15 at 17:15
  • Both are grammatically correct. Your correspondent will understand that when you write, "Yesterday John said that he is hungry," that you mean that "Yesterday John said, "I am hungry." That's the same thing your correspondent would understand if you had said "was hungry." The only difference is that "is" leaves open the possibility that John hadn't eaten when you wrote the letter. – deadrat Jun 29 '15 at 18:36
  • --Thanks for your reply ! What if at the time of writing, John has eaten and is no more hungry and even then if someone uses 'is' , will that be correct ? I'm asking this question because I've seen many times people using present tense even when the activity is no longer true. So are they missing something ? P.S. Thanks for your constant help ! – iamRR Jun 29 '15 at 20:12
  • They're probably not paying attention or they don't know the rule, and if by "seen," you mean "heard," then it's no wonder because conversation is informal. In any case, the enduring present tense is mostly used for long-lived events. Galileo was forced by the Church to declare before a tribunal that the earth was stationery. The apocryphal story is that he did so and muttered "Eppur si mouve" (And yet it still moves). In this case a report would be "Galileo said that the earth is moving." Because we know the earth is still moving. – deadrat Jun 29 '15 at 23:15
  • I have heard that there are two dialects in English , British and American. So that rule of not back shifting, the tense if an activity is still true, followed in both dialects ? – iamRR Jun 30 '15 at 07:03
  • Because I have noticed that Britishers have different accent, different pronunciation when compared to American English. – iamRR Jun 30 '15 at 07:07
  • There are not just two dialects of English. British English has a ton of different dialects, some of which has substantially different grammatical rules. And American English has quite a few dialects, one of which (Southern American) has substantially different grammatical rules. This rule is followed in the standard British and American dialects. There may be some dialects where it's not followed, but if you're learning English, you should use one of the standard dialects. – Peter Shor Jun 30 '15 at 13:17
  • @PeterShor -- As deadrat says that both 'is' and 'was' are grammatically correct then why the usage of 'is' is incorrect ? – iamRR Aug 07 '15 at 21:05
  • 'It breaks the Gricean maxim of quality' gives a more linguistic flavour for those feeling (erroneously) that grammar trumps ethics. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 16 '18 at 11:09
  • @iamRR - When you know it is her fault and you wish your words to convey to your audience that you have that knowledge, and you want to do that more than you want to echo her words, then She told me it is not her fault is wrong. –  Jun 13 '18 at 15:31
  • deadrat might have been far more rigid. "John said (that) he is/was hungry" are both valid reports… if John spoke moments ago.

    If John spoke last week, yesterday; even a few hours ago, passing time rules out “is”. That has nothing to do with whether in fact he is, or anyone could know he is still hungry.

    To me it seems the only way “is” could really work would be if your hostess asked for a second time whether any wanted more food, and you reminded her "John said he is hungry”… which can only happen almost literally in the same breath; never after relevant passage of time.

     – Robbie Goodwin Jun 13 '18 at 23:04
1

I am answering the question posed in the title. Deadrat is right when he gives a negative answer to the question posed in the body text.

"Optional" is not a good word here, because when backshifting is optional the two options are not identical and one will probably be preferable according to what you want to communicate.

Backshifting is optional only when the report is in the past tense and one of two further conditions hold:

1) the reported speech would be in the present tense if it were quoted directly and what it refers to remains currently valid (in this case, you may put the reported speech in the present tense rather than the past: he told me the Earth orbits the Sun), or

2) the reported speech would be in the past tense if it were quoted directly and it is clear that what it refers to was in the past from the speaker's frame of reference (in this case, you may put the reported speech in the past tense rather than the past perfect: he told me he ate it the day before).

The alternatives that may also be used are he told me the Earth orbited the Sun and he told me he had eaten it the day before.

Whether in either case you should backshift depends on issues such as style, emphasis, rhythm, voice, and pace. Is current validity relevant? Well it may or may not be. If it is relevant, how relevant is it? Does it matter what your narrator thinks anyway? In the second case, is the past in the past status of what the speaker refers to sufficiently clear, given your audience? Is there a relevant difference between ate and had eaten, given how you wish to convey the speaker's character or state of mind, your desired pace, and so on?