He said he will and he thought he will

[Mack&Mack]

Hello,

I am so confused with all the tenses now. I was once taught that in English the tenses in subordinate clause should comply with the one in the main clause.

For example,

He said that he would become a doctor.

He thought that he would lose me.

However, it does not seem true as I come across so many sentences with tenses as follows:

He thought that he will lose me and then I saw his jealousy.

He said that this photobook will become an important part of his memory in future because it is a collection of photos taken when he is young.

I wonder if the use of English verb tenses is changing or something. Would anyone shed some lights on this? Thank you in advance.

 

[KON]

Hi Mack&Mack

1)He thought that he would lose me
2)He thought that he will lose me ......

I think there is a slight difference in the meaning between these two sentences, but other than that they are correct, both of them.

In 1), he thought that there was a slight possibility in the future that he may loose you.

In 2) he thought that there was a higher chance - higher than in 1 - that he will loose you.

Consider the following sentences:
a) I would go to the cinema to watch the new film.
b) I will go to the cinema to watch the new fim.

I hope I have answered your question, but I hope a native can offer a second opinion here

 

[Brioche]

Many native speakers make mistakes in reported speech.

Newspapers such as the New York Times and the Washington Post claim to be the world's best, but you will find many mistakes in reported speech in their pages.

 

[Matching Mole]

To me these are simply incorrect. The past (in this case, of will: would) should be used in reported speech accompanying the past verb of speech "said", "thought", etc.

There are exceptions to this (e.g. general truths), but I don't see that any exceptions apply here. They just sound wrong.

 

[TurnLeft]

Hello,

I am so confused with all the tenses now. I was once taught that in English the tenses in subordinate clause should comply with the one in the main clause.

For example,

He said that he would become a doctor.

He thought that he would lose me.

However, it does not seem true as I come across so many sentences with tenses as follows:

He thought that he will lose me and then I saw his jealousy.

He said that this photobook will become an important part of his memory in future because it is a collection of photos taken when he is young.

I wonder if the use of English verb tenses is changing or something. Would anyone shed some lights on this? Thank you in advance.

To me, the latter two examples (with "will") sound wrong. You'd have to have it as direct speech, ie: 'He said, "This photobook will become an important part of my memory in the future because it is a collection of photos taken when I was young."'

 

[KON]

I have to admit I'm a bit confused now like Mack&Mack was at the beginning of this thread. I wrote in my thread that they were correct - of course leaving room for a native speaker to have the final word - because I have also seen them and heard them in magazines and on the telly respectively.

 

[TurnLeft]

I have to admit I'm a bit confused now like Mack&Mack was at the beginning of this thread. I wrote in my thread that they were correct - of course leaving room for a native speaker to have the final word - because I have also seen them and heard them in magazines and on the telly respectively.

"He said he will" sounds like AE, whereas to these BE ears, it sounds completely wrong.

Of course, I know next to nothing about AE, so don't rely on me for that!

 

[dcuk]

Is this just a case of journalists/reporters not adhering to the correct use of indirect speech? To me, both sentences quoted by Mack&Mack using 'will' sound wrong. I think they should be:

1) He thought that he would lose me and then I saw his jealousy.
2) He said that this photobook would become an important part of his memory in the future because it is a collection of photos taken when he was young.

I'm sure this is the correct way of writing them. Future in direct speech --> conditional in indirect speech.

dcuk

 

[Elwintee]

"He says he will" sounds like AE, whereas to these BE ears, it sounds completely wrong.

Of course, I know next to nothing about AE, so don't rely on me for that!

I think you meant to write "He said he will" in the above, rather than "says". Am I right, TurnLeft? It's perfectly normal to say (I imagine in both BE and AE) "He says he will do it".

 

[TurnLeft]

I think you meant to write "He said he will" in the above, rather than "says". Am I right, TurnLeft? It's perfectly normal to say (I imagine in both BE and AE) "He says he will do it".

Yes, yes, of course. I meant to say 'said'.

 

[Loob]

M&M, I have found the sources for your two quotations here and here.

Neither text was written by a native English speaker, and both contain a number of mistakes.

It is possible to use an indirect speech "will" after "said", but only in very particular circumstances. For example, if I saw Tony ten minutes ago and he said "I'll phone you tonight", I might say to my husband "Tony said he'll phone us tonight" because tonight is still in the future at the time I'm relaying Tony's words.

But the two sentences you have quoted are simply incorrect, as others have said.

 

[Ynez]

Would you use present perfect in the second one if the person made the comment some hours before (e.g.), and that's why you see it as wrong?

Mack's original:

He said that this photobook will become an important part of his memory in future because it is a collection of photos taken when he is young.

Would you say:
(not long ago) He has said that this photobook will become an important part of his memory in future because it is a collection of photos taken when he is young.

 

[Cagey]

Here is a link to a thread which discusses contexts in which following "He said" with "will" is acceptable to both AmE and BrE speakers.

Briefly stated, if the statement still holds true when the speech is reported, "will" may be used. Thus, if the book still can be an important part of his memories, "He said that this photobook will" is acceptable.

"He thought that he will lose me and then I saw his jealousy" is different. I agree that will is incorrect here.

1) "Thought" is somehow different from "said". I think it is because "thought" focuses on the subject's experience of thinking or believing, while "said" draws attention to the content of the speech.

2) In any case, "and then I saw his jealousy" sets the entire incident in the past, so the "still holds true" reason for retaining "will" cannot apply.
​

[Loob and Ynez posted while I was writing this; this does not take into account either of their posts.]

 

[johndot]

The link in post #13, Cagey, only gives the opinions of different writers, but no confirmation. So I might as well add mine!

There are those who argue that ‘will’ can be used in reported speech if the event is to take place after the report is made. But:

Is ‘yesterday he said he will phone tomorrow’ correct on the grounds that it’s more purposeful? If so, then ‘yesterday he said he would definitely phone tomorrow’ would have to be a contradiction (would vs definitely), whereas in fact it’s a reinforcement of intention. Furthermore, at the time the speaker spoke, tomorrow would have been just as much in the future as later that same afternoon; and as the reporter cannot (should not) change the essence of what was said, the verb-tense must remain the same whatever the standpoint of the reporter.

 

[Cagey]

The link in post #13, Cagey, only gives the opinions of different writers, but no confirmation.

Actually, the thread clicks through to another in which Panjandrum offers a link to this chart:Noun Clauses/Reported Speech (Indirect Speech) (Look down at the bottom for "exceptions.")

And, from the British Council's LearnEnglishCentral:

If the speech that we report talks about things that you think are still true then the tense doesn’t need to change.​

These and others agree that maintaining "will" is an option in such cases. No one says it is required.

 

[Loob]

Is ‘yesterday he said he will phone tomorrow’ correct on the grounds that it’s more purposeful? If so, then ‘yesterday he said he would definitely phone tomorrow’ would have to be a contradiction

I agree with Cagey. I don't think anyone is arguing that "he said he will phone tomorrow" is more purposeful - or more anything else, come to that. It's an option, that's all

The "standard" option is still, of course, to backshift the tense in past-tense reported speech.

 

[johndot]

I have read and re-read the various postings and links. Although I now see more clearly how others view this topic, I remain unconvinced that the reasoning is sound in, for example, Noun Clauses/Reported Speech (Indirect Speech)(Exceptions), which, in all but one case, leaves the ‘rules’ open to interpretation or conjecture. (I’m not familiar with the source of this material, and I’m caused to wonder if the US influence has any bearing on the seeming insolubility of the question.)

Here, for the moment, are my comments [thus] on the paragraph in that link:

• If the reported sentence deals with a fact or general truth, the present tense is (can be) retained. [Yes, but which? ‘Is retained’ or ‘can be retained’? And how does one know?]

• If the speaker reports something immediately or soon after it was said, the noun clause verb often remains as spoken. [How immediate is soon after (or vice versa)? And how often is often? And how long is a piece of string?]

• If will is the modal in the reported utterance and expresses future time[I don’t like the way this first clause is written—it’s less than clear...], and if the situation described in the quote still holds true at the time of the indirect report, the will may not be changed to would even though the reporting verb is in the past tense [... but if the meaning is what I take it to be, this is the only one of the three bullet points that I might be persuaded by—if only because it states a clear rule. I’m not sure that this doesn’t bring its own problem, though: has everyone fully taken on board that “the will may not be changed to would...”? I don’t think so...]

I expect that many people reading this (don’t flatter yourself, johndot—has anyone got this far?) will think I’m just being picky—and perhaps I am. But it is just this sort of pickiness that language students themselves engage in (knowingly or not) and desperately seek answers to.

 

[Cagey]

...I’m caused to wonder if the US influence has any bearing on the seeming insolubility of the question. ....

I am confused. One of the sources I offered was British, and here is another: BBC Learning English

Certainly, you are entitled to use whichever source seems to you clearest. (However, I don't, for instance, see the difficulty in understanding "can be" to mean that something is possible, but not required.)

You also seem to object to the fact that it is left to the writer (or speaker) to decide whether or not to retain the original tense, as a stylistic choice. We have pointed out above that maintaining the original tense after a reporting verb in a past tense is never required. In various threads, people have explained the reasons they might maintain the tense in certain contexts. However, moving back a tense is always acceptable: anyone who prefers a consistent rule can stick to this system.

 

[KON]

Reporting verbs in past tense

Having read all the threads (at least the ones until now) I have come across various opinions that some accept the rule that (a) the verb in the reporting clause, as a rule of thump, has to be in the past tense and others believe that (b) it depends on the context.

My personal opinion in this case is that you can't have a rule of thump. I was one of the first to have attempted to answer Mack&Mack's question, and I believed that both forms were correct. However many native speakers claimed that it sounded wrong not to use the reporting clause in the past tense. Some claimed that it was simply a case of AmE bearing on this question.

Having therefore read all those threads, I come to the conclusion that it depends on the context and how the writer in the reporting speech wishes to structure the meaning of his sentence.

Cagey's thread helped me reach this decision from the link provided (BBC Learning English).

 

[panjandrum]

[...]
anyone who prefers a consistent rule can stick to this system.

Indeed, but sooner or later they will run up against a situation in which their sticking to the system creates an unidiomatic sentence, or ambiguity.
As with all rules of English, the back-shift rules are based on observation of English in use. It happens that in this particular case the rules are a very good representation, but nevertheless they are descriptive.
And as with the rest of the rules, it is as well for students to learn them and follow them until they are sufficiently familiar with the language and its use to know when it is appropriate to do otherwise.