Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Alex said not to lose hope when a doctor says/said survival is/was impossible.?
1. Direct = Alex said, “Don’t lose hope when a doctor says survival is impossible.”
2. Indirect = Alex said not to lose hope when a doctor says survival is impossible.
3. Indirect = Alex said not to lose hope when a doctor said survival was impossible.
Hello teachers,
I remember that once I asked you whether 2 is correct or 3.
Most said that 2 is correct.
But I think both 2 and 3 can be correct.
I found a note in my book with some examples, I think according to that note, using (said-was) in sentence #3 can be correct.
This is the note:
When a reporting verb is in the simple past tense, backshifting is optional when:
The direct speech refers to something that’s still true or the direct speech refers to a scientific or general truth.
Look at the examples which look like to my sentence #3
Direct = He found, “the Earth is the fifth largest planet in the solar system.”
Indirect = He noted that the Earth is the fifth largest planet in the solar system.
Indirect = He noted that the Earth was the fifth largest planet in the solar system.
So according to this, in sentence #3, using both (said-was) or (says-is) is correct.
I also took a picture of my book page. If you click here you can see it.
http://www.8pic.ir/images/94884409300628794956.jpg
Aren't I right?
4 Answers
- stephieSDLv 78 years ago
You would be right, but the addition of the "Alex said" part changes the entire tense of the sentence. It's been a couple of years since I studied grammar, so I'm forgetting the term, but it's similar to counterfactuals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_sentence#...
In sentence two, you're basically saying, "If a doctor were to say survival is impossible, Alex still says to not lose hope." You're taking that sentence, and converting it into past tense.
(Of course, by changing the initial "said" to "says," you're now speaking in present tense.)
Sentence 3 can't really be turned into a counterfactual, but the context of the sentence is still portraying the same content as a counterfactual would.
If, instead of "Alex said not to lose hope..." your sentences were "Alex doesn't/didn't lose hope...," then all three sentences would be correct.
But by included the clause, "Alex said," you're essentially dealing with counterfactuals, and counterfactual grammar is pretty restrictive.
Source(s): I hope this makes sense. It might not. As I said, I no longer remember the correct terminology for this. - frankLv 78 years ago
All three sentences are correct:
Sentence two would mean not to lose hope if a doctor has already said or will say in the future.
