2

The witness said that he heard two bullets being shot before he noticed two men running down the street

The sentence contains both, reported speech and sequel of actions. Therefore I believe that pluperfect tense should have been used, however, this sentence origins from a C2 - Level English book, therefore I am confused.

ILoveChess
  • 169
  • 1
    Backshifting (to the past perfect "had heard") is the default option since it provides, strictly speaking, a more faithful report in that it uses the same time of orientation as the original speaker, but there is the option of retaining the original preterite ("heard"), so the C2 book is not actually wrong. – BillJ Mar 01 '16 at 20:41
  • 1
    @BillJ: I'd say the book *is* actually "right". It reflects the usage most common among native speakers. It's ESL students who always seem to want to use pluperfect in contexts where it's entirely unnecessary (as in the cited context, where the sequence is pragmatically obvious as well as being explicitly indicated by the word before). – FumbleFingers Mar 01 '16 at 20:52
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers I'd go along with that. I did say the book was not wrong (or it's "right" if you prefer), but backshift is fine too. I too like the simplicity of retaining the original simple preterite (especially with the time marker "before"), but I don' think the sky will fall if the OP uses his preferred past perfect. – BillJ Mar 01 '16 at 21:02
  • 1
    @BillJ: True, but I'm also active on English Language Learners (which I've voted for migration to), and at a rough guess I reckon at least half of all questions there regarding pluperfect simply wouldn't arise if nns would just get used to the idea that it's nowhere near as "necessary" as they tend to think. – FumbleFingers Mar 01 '16 at 21:06
  • @FumbleFingers But I believe in the example given both pluperfect and simple past are valid, though in slightly different circumstances. If the report the witness said he heard comes immediately following the witness's evidence, or it is the first time it is new information, then past is the tense to use. But anyone reporting a year later might well say the witness said he had heard. – WS2 Mar 01 '16 at 22:15
  • @WS2: Hmm. I think you're just attracted to pluperfect there because of its association with "more distant past". Which is perfectly valid as a creative (literary?) device, if not overused. But that's not how many learners see things, and there's a world of difference between the two perspectives. I can easily imagine a good writer using pluperfect in a context as outined by you, but suppose we switch to direct speech from the witness: "I had heard* two bullets being shot before I noticed two men running". I think you really* have to contrive things to make that one credible. – FumbleFingers Mar 02 '16 at 01:02
  • What are you asking? That sentence does use indirect speech. – curiousdannii Mar 02 '16 at 08:17
  • @curiousdannii: I'm not asking anything. I'm simply pointing out that if we consider the actual words uttered by the witness giving rise to the reported speech in the question text, it's unlikely he would actually have used pluperfect himself. Not that it's necessarily "wrong" to use pluperfect when reporting what he said later, but I think to a considerable extent it represents (over-)use of a literary form that wouldn't occur anywhere near as often in the "real-world" context it supposedly represents. – FumbleFingers Mar 02 '16 at 13:27
  • @FumbleFingers I was addressing the OP... this question is not very clear IMO. – curiousdannii Mar 02 '16 at 13:29
  • @curiousdannii: The question clearly states that OP think his cited text should use pluperfect, so by implication he wants us confirm his preconception and dismiss the example as "sloppy, incorrect" (or give some other explanation as to why the writer got it "wrong"). So far as I'm concerned, this is a typical case of an nns failing to appreciate that native speakers in general tend to avoid complex tense forms where they're not necessary (or failing to understand exactly when the complex forms are unnecessary). So it's essentially an ELL question. – FumbleFingers Mar 02 '16 at 14:02
  • @FumbleFingers Ok - there are circumstances in which I would not use it, but also ones in which I would. I had heard that he was a lawyer,so I asked his advice. And if I had known that this would become such a matter of dispute, I would have given further examples from the start. – WS2 Mar 02 '16 at 18:33
  • @WS2: On average I tend to prefer the simpler verb forms, so your first one there would usually just be I heard that he was a lawyer,so... for me. But for the "past tense irrealis" of the second one, I'd almost always say If I'd have* known that, I'd've done something else. Though if you forced* me to fully expand, it would be If I had have* known that...,* and sod the grammarians. I can't stand If I would have* known that* any more than John Lawler can stand my version! :) – FumbleFingers Mar 03 '16 at 14:24
  • @FumbleFingers Oh, I enjoy the pluperfect. If I had heard... strikes quite a different nuance to If I heard... but I agree with your view entirely about if I had have known versus If I would have known (ugh!) - perhaps because, old boy, we are British! – WS2 Mar 03 '16 at 20:15
  • @WS2: Erm... Aren't we old enough to call each other old bean? :) The point is I don't think you and I are in any meaningful sense arguing about whether one usage or the other is "right, wrong" - we're just discussing our own personal preferences. Which is what I'd expect from a couple of (serious) English language enthusiasts (neither of us being exactly "professionals" in this area). But OP's question is predicated on the assumption that it is a matter of right/wrong, which I think means it belongs on ELL, not here. – FumbleFingers Mar 03 '16 at 21:09

0 Answers0