Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums

[ntc69]

Ok, I know all about tenses going back in reported speech and I know about them NOT going back when "the information is still true", etc, etc

Can someone explain this, then:

"I realised it wasn't him"

becomes:

He said he realised it wasn't him.

In other words, neither verb changes. Why not? If you changed the verbs, it would be:

He said he had realised it hadn't been him.

which is not correct at all....why not???

[bud]

Hi Ntc69,

I don't understand your confusion. The repeating of what "he" said was in the past, and "his realising" was in the past (futher in the past). I'm not familiar with the rule you are talking about, but maybe you are mistinterpreting it. Maybe the "information" in your rule has to have the ability to change, or it needs to still be relevant now? I don't know - I'm just guessing.

Here are two examples where your rule would apply:

Joe: My house is green.
Carol: He said his house is green. (The information hasn't changed.)

Mary: My house is blue.
Anne: She said her house was blue. (In between the two statements, Mary repainted it white.)

Getting back to your example, I would choose the past for 'to realise' when the "information" cannot change or is not now relevant:

Joe: I thought it was Andy calling, but then I realised it wasn't him.
Carol: He said he realized it wasn't Andy. (Even though we don't know now who called, the information cannot change.)

However, if the "information" is still relevant, I would choose the present:

Mary: I thought Ed was Jill's secret admirer, but then I realised it isn't him.
Jim: She said she realised it isn't Ed. (Who the secret admirer is still has relevancy because he still exists.)

I'm having difficulty thinking of the right words to clarify your rule, so I'm not sure if this is helpful. I hope it is to some extent.

By the way, "He said he had realised it hadn't been him" is a correct sentence given the right context.

Good luck.

[ntc69]

sorry if I wasn't clear enough in my first post.

I am commenting on the fact that tenses should normally go back one when reporting...present to past, past to past perfect, etc

But with certain sentences...using stative verbs it seems...this doesn't apply.

"I thought it was my umbrella but then I realised who owned it."

becomes

He thought it was his umbrella but then he realised who owned it.

In other words, all the past tenses stay the same. If you transform it into "then he realised who had owned it" the meaning changes totally. You are saying that someone had owned it before the time of speaking but no more...which is wrong.

My idea about the stative verbs is further confirmed by the fact that we could change "thought" and "realised" both into past perfect without problems, but HAVE to leave "was" and "owned" as they are.

I am searching therefore for a simple reason why in these type of sentences the tenses DON'T change...is it to do with stative verbs or something else? Is there something really basic I am missing here??

Much appreciated...

[ntc69]

bump!!