Reported / indirect speech - why no backshift
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I've come across the following example sentences and I wonder why only one part of the sentence requires backshift when put into reported speech. I am familiar with the general rules as well as exceptions (still true, future ...) but I still can't come up with an explanation:
The pilot’s words were: ‘The weather was extremely bad as the plane came in to land.’
Reported speech: The pilot commented that the weather had been extremely bad as the plane came in to land.
was extremely bad -> had been extremely bad // plane came in -> plane came in
To me, both the weather and the action of the plane coming in to land are in the past.
Why don't we backshift the second part:
The pilot commented that the weather had been extremely bad as the plane had come in to land.
Or, what about this one:
Barbara said, “I didn’t realise it was midnight.”
Barbara said she hadn’t realised it was midnight.
Is it okay to say: Barbara said she hadn't realised that it had been midnight.
Thank you!
grammar
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I've come across the following example sentences and I wonder why only one part of the sentence requires backshift when put into reported speech. I am familiar with the general rules as well as exceptions (still true, future ...) but I still can't come up with an explanation:
The pilot’s words were: ‘The weather was extremely bad as the plane came in to land.’
Reported speech: The pilot commented that the weather had been extremely bad as the plane came in to land.
was extremely bad -> had been extremely bad // plane came in -> plane came in
To me, both the weather and the action of the plane coming in to land are in the past.
Why don't we backshift the second part:
The pilot commented that the weather had been extremely bad as the plane had come in to land.
Or, what about this one:
Barbara said, “I didn’t realise it was midnight.”
Barbara said she hadn’t realised it was midnight.
Is it okay to say: Barbara said she hadn't realised that it had been midnight.
Thank you!
grammar
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I've come across the following example sentences and I wonder why only one part of the sentence requires backshift when put into reported speech. I am familiar with the general rules as well as exceptions (still true, future ...) but I still can't come up with an explanation:
The pilot’s words were: ‘The weather was extremely bad as the plane came in to land.’
Reported speech: The pilot commented that the weather had been extremely bad as the plane came in to land.
was extremely bad -> had been extremely bad // plane came in -> plane came in
To me, both the weather and the action of the plane coming in to land are in the past.
Why don't we backshift the second part:
The pilot commented that the weather had been extremely bad as the plane had come in to land.
Or, what about this one:
Barbara said, “I didn’t realise it was midnight.”
Barbara said she hadn’t realised it was midnight.
Is it okay to say: Barbara said she hadn't realised that it had been midnight.
Thank you!
grammar
New contributor
I've come across the following example sentences and I wonder why only one part of the sentence requires backshift when put into reported speech. I am familiar with the general rules as well as exceptions (still true, future ...) but I still can't come up with an explanation:
The pilot’s words were: ‘The weather was extremely bad as the plane came in to land.’
Reported speech: The pilot commented that the weather had been extremely bad as the plane came in to land.
was extremely bad -> had been extremely bad // plane came in -> plane came in
To me, both the weather and the action of the plane coming in to land are in the past.
Why don't we backshift the second part:
The pilot commented that the weather had been extremely bad as the plane had come in to land.
Or, what about this one:
Barbara said, “I didn’t realise it was midnight.”
Barbara said she hadn’t realised it was midnight.
Is it okay to say: Barbara said she hadn't realised that it had been midnight.
Thank you!
grammar
grammar
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 4 hours ago
verda
261
261
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
This goes to the distinction between tense and aspect: when you use an inflected form of have + [past participle]
, the primary marking is perfective aspect: you are saying that as of some time, a particular action being referred to had been completed, and its completion is relevant at the reference time of the matrix clause (i.e., the time of speaking or of reporting).
In this case, the weather being bad and the plane landing were things that were happening simultaneously, so perfective aspect is not appropriate. It would also clash syntactically with using the as + [clause]
construction, which requires that the subordinate clause be able to take an imperfective reading. Compare the following two sentences (the asterisk means it sounds ungrammatical to me):
They had been shelling fava beans as Thomas came through the door.
*They had been shelling fava beans as Thomas had come through the door.
Finally, note that came in the subordinate clause is in its preterite form so a past time interpretation is there as needed for backshift.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
It is all to do with tense simplification in subordinate clauses:
It should – logically – be
*The pilot commented that the weather had been extremely bad as the plane had come in to land.
but, because of tense simplification in the subordinate (time) clause, it becomes, as you noticed,
The pilot commented that the weather had been extremely bad as the plane came in to land.
Let me quote Michael Swan's Practical English Usage, Oxford University Press, second edition, fourth impression, 1996, page 583, entry 556, "tense simplification in subordinate clauses":
1 reasons for tense simplification
If the main verb of a sentence makes it clear what kind of time the speaker is talking about, it is not always necessary for the same time to be indicated again in the subordinate clauses. Compare:
This discovery means that we will spend less on food.
This discovery will mean that we spend less on food.
It is unlikely that he will win.
I will pray that he wins.
Verbs in subordinate clauses are often simpler in form than verbs in main clauses – for example present instead of future, simple past instead of conditional, simple past instead of past perfect.
You'll find Coca-Cola wherever you go. (NOT… wherever you will go.)
He would never do anything that went against his conscience. (More natural than… that would go against his conscience.)
I hadn't understood what he said. (More natural than… what he had said.)
If – like myself – you are not a native speaker of English, you must have noticed that in bilingual editions of books, the side which has the English version of the text is – nearly always – considerably shorter than the side which has the version in another language: the English version is much more concise than the version in a foreign language.
To me, this reflects a mentality – inbred, a question of nurture, not of nature – characterized by a kind of abhorrence for redundancy: since "had been" establishes that the time the weather was such and such came before the time the pilot "commented" on it, and since the conjunction "as" establishes that the time the weather was such and such and the time the plane "came in" to land were contemporaneous, the speaker or writer feels they can do without a "had come in", sparing themself a word to pronounce or write!
I have given such an answer already to the question entitled "I remembered seeing or having seem him?", which asks the same question.
I’m not convinced that tense-simplification alone, though a real phenomenon frequently seen in English, fully explains the asker’s scenario. In languages with clearly marked morphological distinctions in a verb’s perfect-vs-imperfect aspect, one always asks oneself when translating from EN into those languages which of the two pasts (perfect, imperfect) one chooses for each verb. As a mental exercise—using native skill not Google translate—try hand-translating the original and backshifted sentence into any of FR, IT, ES, PT to see what I mean.
– tchrist♦
29 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
verda is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f477373%2freported-indirect-speech-why-no-backshift%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
This goes to the distinction between tense and aspect: when you use an inflected form of have + [past participle]
, the primary marking is perfective aspect: you are saying that as of some time, a particular action being referred to had been completed, and its completion is relevant at the reference time of the matrix clause (i.e., the time of speaking or of reporting).
In this case, the weather being bad and the plane landing were things that were happening simultaneously, so perfective aspect is not appropriate. It would also clash syntactically with using the as + [clause]
construction, which requires that the subordinate clause be able to take an imperfective reading. Compare the following two sentences (the asterisk means it sounds ungrammatical to me):
They had been shelling fava beans as Thomas came through the door.
*They had been shelling fava beans as Thomas had come through the door.
Finally, note that came in the subordinate clause is in its preterite form so a past time interpretation is there as needed for backshift.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
This goes to the distinction between tense and aspect: when you use an inflected form of have + [past participle]
, the primary marking is perfective aspect: you are saying that as of some time, a particular action being referred to had been completed, and its completion is relevant at the reference time of the matrix clause (i.e., the time of speaking or of reporting).
In this case, the weather being bad and the plane landing were things that were happening simultaneously, so perfective aspect is not appropriate. It would also clash syntactically with using the as + [clause]
construction, which requires that the subordinate clause be able to take an imperfective reading. Compare the following two sentences (the asterisk means it sounds ungrammatical to me):
They had been shelling fava beans as Thomas came through the door.
*They had been shelling fava beans as Thomas had come through the door.
Finally, note that came in the subordinate clause is in its preterite form so a past time interpretation is there as needed for backshift.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
This goes to the distinction between tense and aspect: when you use an inflected form of have + [past participle]
, the primary marking is perfective aspect: you are saying that as of some time, a particular action being referred to had been completed, and its completion is relevant at the reference time of the matrix clause (i.e., the time of speaking or of reporting).
In this case, the weather being bad and the plane landing were things that were happening simultaneously, so perfective aspect is not appropriate. It would also clash syntactically with using the as + [clause]
construction, which requires that the subordinate clause be able to take an imperfective reading. Compare the following two sentences (the asterisk means it sounds ungrammatical to me):
They had been shelling fava beans as Thomas came through the door.
*They had been shelling fava beans as Thomas had come through the door.
Finally, note that came in the subordinate clause is in its preterite form so a past time interpretation is there as needed for backshift.
This goes to the distinction between tense and aspect: when you use an inflected form of have + [past participle]
, the primary marking is perfective aspect: you are saying that as of some time, a particular action being referred to had been completed, and its completion is relevant at the reference time of the matrix clause (i.e., the time of speaking or of reporting).
In this case, the weather being bad and the plane landing were things that were happening simultaneously, so perfective aspect is not appropriate. It would also clash syntactically with using the as + [clause]
construction, which requires that the subordinate clause be able to take an imperfective reading. Compare the following two sentences (the asterisk means it sounds ungrammatical to me):
They had been shelling fava beans as Thomas came through the door.
*They had been shelling fava beans as Thomas had come through the door.
Finally, note that came in the subordinate clause is in its preterite form so a past time interpretation is there as needed for backshift.
answered 2 hours ago
jlovegren
11.8k12143
11.8k12143
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
It is all to do with tense simplification in subordinate clauses:
It should – logically – be
*The pilot commented that the weather had been extremely bad as the plane had come in to land.
but, because of tense simplification in the subordinate (time) clause, it becomes, as you noticed,
The pilot commented that the weather had been extremely bad as the plane came in to land.
Let me quote Michael Swan's Practical English Usage, Oxford University Press, second edition, fourth impression, 1996, page 583, entry 556, "tense simplification in subordinate clauses":
1 reasons for tense simplification
If the main verb of a sentence makes it clear what kind of time the speaker is talking about, it is not always necessary for the same time to be indicated again in the subordinate clauses. Compare:
This discovery means that we will spend less on food.
This discovery will mean that we spend less on food.
It is unlikely that he will win.
I will pray that he wins.
Verbs in subordinate clauses are often simpler in form than verbs in main clauses – for example present instead of future, simple past instead of conditional, simple past instead of past perfect.
You'll find Coca-Cola wherever you go. (NOT… wherever you will go.)
He would never do anything that went against his conscience. (More natural than… that would go against his conscience.)
I hadn't understood what he said. (More natural than… what he had said.)
If – like myself – you are not a native speaker of English, you must have noticed that in bilingual editions of books, the side which has the English version of the text is – nearly always – considerably shorter than the side which has the version in another language: the English version is much more concise than the version in a foreign language.
To me, this reflects a mentality – inbred, a question of nurture, not of nature – characterized by a kind of abhorrence for redundancy: since "had been" establishes that the time the weather was such and such came before the time the pilot "commented" on it, and since the conjunction "as" establishes that the time the weather was such and such and the time the plane "came in" to land were contemporaneous, the speaker or writer feels they can do without a "had come in", sparing themself a word to pronounce or write!
I have given such an answer already to the question entitled "I remembered seeing or having seem him?", which asks the same question.
I’m not convinced that tense-simplification alone, though a real phenomenon frequently seen in English, fully explains the asker’s scenario. In languages with clearly marked morphological distinctions in a verb’s perfect-vs-imperfect aspect, one always asks oneself when translating from EN into those languages which of the two pasts (perfect, imperfect) one chooses for each verb. As a mental exercise—using native skill not Google translate—try hand-translating the original and backshifted sentence into any of FR, IT, ES, PT to see what I mean.
– tchrist♦
29 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
It is all to do with tense simplification in subordinate clauses:
It should – logically – be
*The pilot commented that the weather had been extremely bad as the plane had come in to land.
but, because of tense simplification in the subordinate (time) clause, it becomes, as you noticed,
The pilot commented that the weather had been extremely bad as the plane came in to land.
Let me quote Michael Swan's Practical English Usage, Oxford University Press, second edition, fourth impression, 1996, page 583, entry 556, "tense simplification in subordinate clauses":
1 reasons for tense simplification
If the main verb of a sentence makes it clear what kind of time the speaker is talking about, it is not always necessary for the same time to be indicated again in the subordinate clauses. Compare:
This discovery means that we will spend less on food.
This discovery will mean that we spend less on food.
It is unlikely that he will win.
I will pray that he wins.
Verbs in subordinate clauses are often simpler in form than verbs in main clauses – for example present instead of future, simple past instead of conditional, simple past instead of past perfect.
You'll find Coca-Cola wherever you go. (NOT… wherever you will go.)
He would never do anything that went against his conscience. (More natural than… that would go against his conscience.)
I hadn't understood what he said. (More natural than… what he had said.)
If – like myself – you are not a native speaker of English, you must have noticed that in bilingual editions of books, the side which has the English version of the text is – nearly always – considerably shorter than the side which has the version in another language: the English version is much more concise than the version in a foreign language.
To me, this reflects a mentality – inbred, a question of nurture, not of nature – characterized by a kind of abhorrence for redundancy: since "had been" establishes that the time the weather was such and such came before the time the pilot "commented" on it, and since the conjunction "as" establishes that the time the weather was such and such and the time the plane "came in" to land were contemporaneous, the speaker or writer feels they can do without a "had come in", sparing themself a word to pronounce or write!
I have given such an answer already to the question entitled "I remembered seeing or having seem him?", which asks the same question.
I’m not convinced that tense-simplification alone, though a real phenomenon frequently seen in English, fully explains the asker’s scenario. In languages with clearly marked morphological distinctions in a verb’s perfect-vs-imperfect aspect, one always asks oneself when translating from EN into those languages which of the two pasts (perfect, imperfect) one chooses for each verb. As a mental exercise—using native skill not Google translate—try hand-translating the original and backshifted sentence into any of FR, IT, ES, PT to see what I mean.
– tchrist♦
29 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
It is all to do with tense simplification in subordinate clauses:
It should – logically – be
*The pilot commented that the weather had been extremely bad as the plane had come in to land.
but, because of tense simplification in the subordinate (time) clause, it becomes, as you noticed,
The pilot commented that the weather had been extremely bad as the plane came in to land.
Let me quote Michael Swan's Practical English Usage, Oxford University Press, second edition, fourth impression, 1996, page 583, entry 556, "tense simplification in subordinate clauses":
1 reasons for tense simplification
If the main verb of a sentence makes it clear what kind of time the speaker is talking about, it is not always necessary for the same time to be indicated again in the subordinate clauses. Compare:
This discovery means that we will spend less on food.
This discovery will mean that we spend less on food.
It is unlikely that he will win.
I will pray that he wins.
Verbs in subordinate clauses are often simpler in form than verbs in main clauses – for example present instead of future, simple past instead of conditional, simple past instead of past perfect.
You'll find Coca-Cola wherever you go. (NOT… wherever you will go.)
He would never do anything that went against his conscience. (More natural than… that would go against his conscience.)
I hadn't understood what he said. (More natural than… what he had said.)
If – like myself – you are not a native speaker of English, you must have noticed that in bilingual editions of books, the side which has the English version of the text is – nearly always – considerably shorter than the side which has the version in another language: the English version is much more concise than the version in a foreign language.
To me, this reflects a mentality – inbred, a question of nurture, not of nature – characterized by a kind of abhorrence for redundancy: since "had been" establishes that the time the weather was such and such came before the time the pilot "commented" on it, and since the conjunction "as" establishes that the time the weather was such and such and the time the plane "came in" to land were contemporaneous, the speaker or writer feels they can do without a "had come in", sparing themself a word to pronounce or write!
I have given such an answer already to the question entitled "I remembered seeing or having seem him?", which asks the same question.
It is all to do with tense simplification in subordinate clauses:
It should – logically – be
*The pilot commented that the weather had been extremely bad as the plane had come in to land.
but, because of tense simplification in the subordinate (time) clause, it becomes, as you noticed,
The pilot commented that the weather had been extremely bad as the plane came in to land.
Let me quote Michael Swan's Practical English Usage, Oxford University Press, second edition, fourth impression, 1996, page 583, entry 556, "tense simplification in subordinate clauses":
1 reasons for tense simplification
If the main verb of a sentence makes it clear what kind of time the speaker is talking about, it is not always necessary for the same time to be indicated again in the subordinate clauses. Compare:
This discovery means that we will spend less on food.
This discovery will mean that we spend less on food.
It is unlikely that he will win.
I will pray that he wins.
Verbs in subordinate clauses are often simpler in form than verbs in main clauses – for example present instead of future, simple past instead of conditional, simple past instead of past perfect.
You'll find Coca-Cola wherever you go. (NOT… wherever you will go.)
He would never do anything that went against his conscience. (More natural than… that would go against his conscience.)
I hadn't understood what he said. (More natural than… what he had said.)
If – like myself – you are not a native speaker of English, you must have noticed that in bilingual editions of books, the side which has the English version of the text is – nearly always – considerably shorter than the side which has the version in another language: the English version is much more concise than the version in a foreign language.
To me, this reflects a mentality – inbred, a question of nurture, not of nature – characterized by a kind of abhorrence for redundancy: since "had been" establishes that the time the weather was such and such came before the time the pilot "commented" on it, and since the conjunction "as" establishes that the time the weather was such and such and the time the plane "came in" to land were contemporaneous, the speaker or writer feels they can do without a "had come in", sparing themself a word to pronounce or write!
I have given such an answer already to the question entitled "I remembered seeing or having seem him?", which asks the same question.
edited 35 mins ago
answered 1 hour ago
user58319
2,00773064
2,00773064
I’m not convinced that tense-simplification alone, though a real phenomenon frequently seen in English, fully explains the asker’s scenario. In languages with clearly marked morphological distinctions in a verb’s perfect-vs-imperfect aspect, one always asks oneself when translating from EN into those languages which of the two pasts (perfect, imperfect) one chooses for each verb. As a mental exercise—using native skill not Google translate—try hand-translating the original and backshifted sentence into any of FR, IT, ES, PT to see what I mean.
– tchrist♦
29 mins ago
add a comment |
I’m not convinced that tense-simplification alone, though a real phenomenon frequently seen in English, fully explains the asker’s scenario. In languages with clearly marked morphological distinctions in a verb’s perfect-vs-imperfect aspect, one always asks oneself when translating from EN into those languages which of the two pasts (perfect, imperfect) one chooses for each verb. As a mental exercise—using native skill not Google translate—try hand-translating the original and backshifted sentence into any of FR, IT, ES, PT to see what I mean.
– tchrist♦
29 mins ago
I’m not convinced that tense-simplification alone, though a real phenomenon frequently seen in English, fully explains the asker’s scenario. In languages with clearly marked morphological distinctions in a verb’s perfect-vs-imperfect aspect, one always asks oneself when translating from EN into those languages which of the two pasts (perfect, imperfect) one chooses for each verb. As a mental exercise—using native skill not Google translate—try hand-translating the original and backshifted sentence into any of FR, IT, ES, PT to see what I mean.
– tchrist♦
29 mins ago
I’m not convinced that tense-simplification alone, though a real phenomenon frequently seen in English, fully explains the asker’s scenario. In languages with clearly marked morphological distinctions in a verb’s perfect-vs-imperfect aspect, one always asks oneself when translating from EN into those languages which of the two pasts (perfect, imperfect) one chooses for each verb. As a mental exercise—using native skill not Google translate—try hand-translating the original and backshifted sentence into any of FR, IT, ES, PT to see what I mean.
– tchrist♦
29 mins ago
add a comment |
verda is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
verda is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
verda is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
verda is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f477373%2freported-indirect-speech-why-no-backshift%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown