| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Chan-Seung Lee
Joined: 03 Dec 2005
Posts: 1032
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:17 pm Post subject: must |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| U.S. politicians warned Beijing it must revalue its currency or face consequences. |
I think that 'must' in the above sentence should be changed to 'had to' because 'warned' is the past tense.
But I'm not sure. Please teach me.
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Philo Kevetch
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 564
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Chan-Seung Lee - Yes, " warned" is past tense.....
but...."must" is used because China must revalue it's currency "now" or sometime in the future (soon).
P.S. Why not combine your questions in a single post..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
buddhaheart
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 195
Location: Vancouver, BC Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The sentence is a reported imperative. The reporting verb �warned� is in the past. �Must� is an auxiliary or defective verb that has NO changes of form for tense, person or #; it only has the present tense form. You probably think this looks like a violation of the sequence of tenses. Remember there�re 3 or 4 exceptions to this rule which you must consider.
Since this is an imperative, the tense in the subordinate clause could be the simple form, i.e., the base form or the infinitive w/o the �to�. When the subordinate clause expresses a universal truth, the verb should be in the present tense even if the principal is in the past. When the subordinate clause expresses a situation that has not changed since the original statement, we use the present tense. When �than� introduces the subordinate clause, the present tense may also be used if that is the sense in the dependent clause.
In your quoted indirect speech, the verb �must� is therefore acceptable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
