|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
raewon
Joined: 16 Jun 2009
|
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:31 pm Post subject: A question on reported speech |
|
|
I hope I haven't asked this before. I quickly looked through my previous questions, but I couldn't find the answer.
In the following sentence, which is grammatically correct (or are both grammatically acceptable)?
During the Middle Ages, they didn’t believe that the earth [goes/went] round the sun.
In Practical English Usage (Michael Swan), I found:
After reporting past verbs, we usually change the original tenses even if the things the original speaker said are still true.
In The Teacher's Grammar of English (Ron Cowan), I found:
Backshifting is merely optional if the statement expresses something thought to be a general truth. Example:
Torrecelli concluded that the atmosphere is (OR was) a sea of air pressing down on the surface of the earth.
Thanks a lot. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
edwardcatflap
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think you've answered the question yourself. They're both acceptable |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
The Cosmic Hum

Joined: 09 May 2003 Location: Sonic Space
|
Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:38 pm Post subject: Re: A question on reported speech |
|
|
raewon wrote: |
I hope I haven't asked this before. I quickly looked through my previous questions, but I couldn't find the answer.
In the following sentence, which is grammatically correct (or are both grammatically acceptable)?
During the Middle Ages, they didn’t believe that the earth [goes/went] round the sun.
In Practical English Usage (Michael Swan), I found:
After reporting past verbs, we usually change the original tenses even if the things the original speaker said are still true.
In The Teacher's Grammar of English (Ron Cowan), I found:
Backshifting is merely optional if the statement expresses something thought to be a general truth. Example:
Torrecelli concluded that the atmosphere is (OR was) a sea of air pressing down on the surface of the earth.
Thanks a lot. |
Hello Raewon,
I agree with Ed that both are acceptable.
However, this actually has a bit of layering to it that you might find interesting.
In your example sentence:
During the Middle Ages, they didn’t believe that the earth [goes/went] round the sun.
It begins with a dependent clause, - referring literally to a past event.
When Cowan suggests that backshifting is 'merely optional', he only uses as an example a specific general truth, without time reference, in both the independent and dependent clause of the sentence.
The focus of Cowan's entire complex sentence is upon a statement of general truth - literal time was not implied, and perhaps not to be inferred either.
Timeless truth being revealed.
For Cowan to suggest that backshifting is merely optional, is a bit of a stretch in semantic terms, but a useful stretch in specific cases.
Flexibility is nice to have when constructing sentences of this nature. Depending on the context of the narrative, both options are available.
However, all that being said, without specific context, I would go with 'went' in your example. Not only does it sound truer to my ear, it also follows in line with the time referencing being given. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
raewon
Joined: 16 Jun 2009
|
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you very much for both replies.
The Cosmic Hum, you were able to shed light on the reason I asked this question in the first place. As edwardcatflap wrote, I had kind of answered the question in my original post. So why ask the question? Because to my ear, "went" is the only one that sounds "natural." Now I guess I know why.
Thanks to both of you. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|