FR: Elle lui a répondu qu'elle pourrait l'identifier

[JennaP1984]

hi am studying for a grammar exam tomorrow on direct and indirect discourse.

in my exercise book, i dont understand some of the examples. can anyone help?

put the following into indirect discourse:

L'avocat: "Pourriez-vous identifier cet homme?"
Mme Leclerc: "Oui, je pourrais l'identifier clairement..."

apparently the answer is:
L'avocat lui a demandé si elle pourrait identifier cet homme. Mme Leclerc lui a repondu que oui, qu'elle pourrait l'identifier clairement...

the direct discourse is in the present conditional tense, so apparently this goes to the PAST conditional in indirect discourse.

but the book says the indirect discourse stays in the conditional. can anyone explain why this is the answer and not 'elle aurait pu'?

thanks

 

[geve]

I'm not sure I can explain the whole grammar rule about discours indirect, but I can try to explain why this is not "elle aurait pu"

"elle aurait pu" would mean that at the time, she would have been able to do so - which implies that she cannot anymore.

and I think all verbs in your two sentences (both direct & indirect) are in present conditionnel ?

 

[Morphea]

I have to agree with geve here. I'm not a linguist either and can't give you the "real" reason, but here's my take on it:

Past conditional isn't literally the past version of conditional.
The exemple you gave, "elle aurait pu", is about something happening in the past, but evokes a missed opportunity. Here's an example:

"Elle aurait pu lui tenir tête" / "She could have stood up to him"
Meaning she could have done that back then - but she didn't.

If you translate the dialog using past conditional, you introduce this notion of missed opportunity (which would change the meaning).

 

[JennaP1984]

i still dont understand, but i am confused because my book says this:

Discours direct -------> Discours indirect
present conditional -----> past conditional

so if this is wrong why does it say it in my book?

 

[Morphea]

Was the answer given in this exercise book too?
Because if so, there's clearly an incoherence in this book...

Here's what I found on espacefrancais.com/expression.html#t :

Le verbe du discours direct est au conditionnel présent ou passé, il garde le même temps et le mode.
Par exemple: Elle pensa: "elle aurait pu partir" => Elle pensa qu'elle aurait pu partir.

Rough translation: present conditionnal and past conditionnal remain the same when switching from direct to indirect speech. In short: the book's rule is wrong...

If you want to check some other rules, try the link I gave you, it looks quite extensive.

And good luck with your exam!

 

[Jean-Jacques]

Jenna,
"Pourriez-vous...?" and "Oui, je pourrais" are both present conditional. There is no inconsistency, and this is no different from English.
"I'd rather be a sparrow than a snail, yes I would, if I could, I surely would".
And everything which may happen will happen in the future ("Could you identify this man if you were going to see him later today?" - "Yes, I could").
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
JJ

 

[Morphea]

Jenna,
"Pourriez-vous...?" and "Oui, je pourrais" are both present conditional. There is no inconsistency

The inconsistency comes from the rule that seems to be stated in the book:

Discours direct Discours indirect
present conditional -----> past conditional

which is wrong, since present conditional should remain present conditional, and shouldn't be changed to past conditional

 

[Jean-Jacques]

Oops, sorry, you are dead right, Morphea - anyway, going back to Jenna's initial post, I must admit I don't quite understand it, because it looks perfectly consistent up until this point:
"apparently the answer is:
"L'avocat lui a demandé si elle pourrait identifier cet homme. Mme Leclerc lui a repondu que oui, qu'elle pourrait l'identifier clairement..."
But then she keeps going:
"the direct discourse is in the present conditional tense, so apparently this goes to the PAST conditional in indirect discourse."
which is incorrect (nowhere thus far have we seen the past tense), and further on:
"but the book says the indirect discourse stays in the conditional."
which is the case!

Then, her second post says that her book pretends:
"Discours direct Discours indirect
present conditional -----> past conditional"
but this is a bit cryptic and not directly related to her first post. So, in a nutshell, I'm puzzled. As usual, I guess a more comprehensive quote from the grammar book could allow us to spot a potential error, either in the book itself, or in Jenna's interpretation of it.
Cheers,
JJ