Teacher Discussion Forums

Can I keep the tense in these sentences or no and why?
please I need the answer from an exprienced teacher with detailed explanation if possible please.................

1-Is the weather fine in July?..I wanted to know if the weather is or was fine.(which answer is correct and why.

2-Are pets allowed?I asked if pets are or were allowed and why?

.........Elvis.......

You can keep the present in both cases. The reason is that the past tense is actually the 'distant' tense; the distance normally refers to the time scheme in the past, but can also be social or attitudinal distance.

When you're reporting on something you can be either distant in attitude or not.

For example Mike said he is coming suggests his coming is a matter of immediate concern, whereas Mike said he was not coming does not carry that inference.

Another example: in which of these two sentences is the unfortunate beggar lmore likely to get some food?
a) He said he was starving.
b) He said he's starving.


As for teaching, just tell them backshifting is optional in reported speech unless the action referred to is already in the past.
He said he will come on Tuesday.
He said he would come on Tuesday.
are both correct until the day referred to is already in the past.

A grammarian viewpoint is different. This from Bryan Garner:

1. When the principal clause has a verb in the present, present perfect, or future, the subordinate clause has a present-tense verb. Grammarians call this the primary sequence.
2. When the principal clause is in past tense or past perfect, the subordinate cluase has a past-tense verb. Grammarians call this the secondary sequence.
3. When a subordinate clause states an ongoing or general truth, it should be in the present tense regardless of the tense in the principal clause — thus He said yesterday that he is Jewish, not He said yesterday that he was Jewish. This might be called the "ongoing-truth exception."

Your examples seem to fit the third rule, since the weather — though ephemeral — is nailed down to a certain month, and since the rules regarding animals remain the same. So they would have to be in the present, in careful writing. But probably many people don't keep the distinction when talking. Starving would be an ephemeral state that isn't a general truth, so it might be best rendered in past: He said he was starving. Or is this a case of an ongoing truth but not a general truth? This question comes up from time to time and I ask myself this question too.

Garner's not a 'grammarian', he's a fantasist.

You call somebody who advises you on the color of your furnishings and fittings an internal decorator, not a structural engineer.

Garner, Frankenstrunk and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all have every right to advise us on the designs, shapes and colours to use in our sentences. They have no right to claim that they are describing its essential structure.

You will normally backshift when using a past tense reporting verb for consistency, but the thing to remember is that the verb tense, like the aspect, is determined by the attitude of the speaker, and that the essential diffference between the two English tenses is proximal/distant, not past/present. It appears to be a heritage of Indo-European.

Huddleston stated he found no relevance to proximal/distant, but his article on backshifting in the CGEL is one place where it could be much more explanatory if it had taken it into account.

I was simply giving him a choice. He now knows the descriptive and prescriptive solution, so he can pick and choose. No need to censure certain people, political viewpoints, or American English based on your personal bias.

But if Garner is right then all this is "wrong"

"What's your name?

"My name is John"

"Eh?"

"I said that my name was John. Are you deaf"

Later

"He asked me what my name was and and I told him twice that my name was John. Then I asked him if he was deaf"

Prescribing is one thing. Making it up as you go along is another. There is absolutely nothing wrong with those pasts.

I said that there was nothing wrong with those pasts.

But if Garner is right then all this is "wrong"

Gosh, how come is everything so black and white with you guys? Lighten up — is there no room for compromise and gray? We have to call Garner a fantasist and interior decorator? I didn't say that the other way was "wrong." I just increased the options of looking at things.
I believe I said that many people say it the other way. I also said in careful writing, however, it may be better to follow the principles — since an important distinction could be kept that can't be detected in the voice, as when speaking.
"I said that my name was John." — but now it's Joe. (in another context)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with those pasts.

Neither is there anything wrong with the present. It doesn't sound stilted. It will be up to Elvis how careful he wants to be. But I would be amiss if I withheld the grammar point, just as a house would be amiss with wonderful, complete engineering plans, but crass or no interior decorating.

I said that there was nothing wrong with those pasts.

But now you see the light. I'm glad I could be of service.

I'm with Stevie on this one.

Normal:

I took a taxi last week. The driver was Polish and didn't speak a word of English.

Sod Garner!

These are fine:

Why did you call Jotham just now?

I wanted to know if the weather was good or not./I wanted to know if the weather is good or not.

Or does Garner insist I use the present there?

The alternative point of view you've offered is simply wrong.

It is quite common for 'prescriptivists' to invent a spurious rule, and then announce all those that don't follow it are being careless.

I took a taxi last week. The driver was Polish and didn't speak a word of English.

This isn't a tense sequence problem, which occurs in the same sentence.

I wanted to know if the weather was good or not./I wanted to know if the weather is good or not.

Then I asked him if he was deaf

These are conditional sentences, which operate another set of principles.

This is the Garner that you quoted:

" When a subordinate clause states an ongoing or general truth, it should be in the present tense regardless of the tense in the principal clause---thus He said yesterday that he is Jewish, not He said yesterday that he was Jewish. This might be called the "ongoing-truth exception"

Do you agree with him? If not, why mention it? Who's being black and white?

By the way,I detect a not very subtle change between:

"So they would have to be in the present, in careful writing"

and:

"I also said in careful writing, however, it may be better to follow the principles"

No, you didn't.

But the beef is with Garner not with you. You can change your mind if you like.

He says "NOT "He said yesterday that he was Jewish".

It's not a "prescriptive solution" as you put it. He presents it as a rule. But it's not true.

It's black and white. Black and white baloney. He made it up.

Another thing:


I wanted to know if the weather was good or not./I wanted to know if the weather is good or not.


Then I asked him if he was deaf

"These are conditional sentences, which operate another set of principles."

Are you sure? Would they be conditionals if the word were "whether"?

This isn't a tense sequence problem, which occurs in the same sentence.

I took a taxi last week and the driver was Polish and didn't speak a word of English.

These are conditional sentences, which operate another set of principles.

Are you sure they are conditional?

I took a taxi last week and the driver was Polish and didn't speak a word of English.

No this won't do either to illustrate tense sequence. I really have to be explicit. You have to have a subordinate clause.
Garner's book has an advisory tone for those who want to know principles of clear writing. He's not trying to blast people who are uneducated or speak a dialect, or linguists, who defend their speech: that's not his purpose. He's trying to help those who care to improve in that area — and there are many. Perhaps your reaction may not be so vitriolic if you keep these things in mind.
The paragraph before the example, he admits of gray area, and perhaps I erred in not quoting the whole book to you:

In careful writing, the tenses agree both logically and grammatically. The basic rules of tense sequence are easily stated, althought the many examples that follow belie their ostensible simplicity.

At the end, he also admits:

Finally, some writers mistakenly ignore the ongoing-truth exception — e.g.: "It hadn't excaped my notice that many modern texts, like many older ones, were [read are] self-referential, or concerned with the pleasures of 'recognition.'" Letter of Claude rawson, London Rev. of Books, 18 May 1989, at 5.

Whether it's necessary or not, you'd nevertheless find yourself on firmer ground perhaps defending this position rather than that of shall.

Fair enough, but it's the general tone and such turns of phrase and pronouncements as:

"thus He said yesterday that he is Jewish, not He said yesterday that he was Jewish"


" some writers mistakenly ignore the ongoing-truth exception"

that get up my nose. It doesn't sound like "an advisory tone" to me. I hate to think how he would sound laying down the law!

Well, I guess you could say when he's giving advice, he's intentionally clear and unapologetic about it, so there's no chance of missing or miscommunicating the point.