The first is indirect discourse: it reports the content of what you said, not your actual words.
The second is direct discourse, reporting your actual words, and should be pointed with quotation marks:
I told Jim, "Don’t shout!"
This is complicated because it depends how you interpret heard. In the examples below, each line shows
what the original speaker said -> how it was reported.
It could be hear meaning listen to
I heard Esther sing -> She said she heard Esther sing
I heard Esther singing -> She said she heard Esther singing
Or it could be hear meaning somebody told ...
You can certainly use past tense X scolded Y to report what X did to Y.
But scold doesn't work the same as, for example, tell, inform, convince, all of which can be followed by a subordinate clause giving more details of the action...
X told Y [that] it was raining
X informed Y [that] he was leaving
X convinced Y [that] it was true
Note that the ...
Many native speakers, when reporting indirectly what someone has said, will cast the verb in the past without really thinking about it, as second-nature:
She told us ice floated on water.
That is perfectly grammatical, but the past tense is not required there for the statement to be grammatical, as there are plenty of speakers who would not use the past ...
It is not the change to indirect speech which dictates the change in verb form; rather it is the use of the verb could to describe the possibility of an outcome contrary to what occurred, and the introduction of information about that outcome in the form of the parenthetical which crashed.
He told me that the plane, which crashed, could make tight turns ...
If the situation reported is still valid at the time of reporting, backshifting is optional. See Swan (2005) Practical English Usage, pages 275-6, for several examples.
John said that he would give me a pen. Correct in all situations.
John said that he will give me a pen. Possible if John has not yet given the pen to the speaker.
S2: I wanted to let you ...
In reported speech, the tense of the verbs in the reported speech is normally backshifted.
I am ready
He said he was ready
There are, however, exceptions. If the original statement is a general truth
- "water boils at 100C" or is still true - "my name is Sarah", it is not necessary to backshift. In such cases, the backshift is optional: some people ...
Number 1 is most used in verbal and writing.
Number 2 is not really a good/correct sentence. I could see a sentence like that being said in verbal communication, but not written. For example, someone could say Do you know then pause for a while like they are thinking about something, and then say Where does Susan work?. But it would still be more ...
Omitting that in this sort of context is quite ordinary, and acceptable in all registers.
In these sentences that acts as a subordinator (some grammarians call it a complementizer): it tells the reader or hearer that the following content clause (a clause headed by a finite verb) is subordinate to the head clause.
Subordinator that may be omitted in many ...
Both are correct.
Very often, we refer in the present tense to statements made in the past, to suggest that the conversation is still in progress—that the idea is still relevant, still worth considering, still worth responding to.
For example, this way of talking is very common when talking about philosophy:
Plato denies that concrete things are fully ...
Yes, has been is grammatically correct, even in indirect speech in the past tense. Indeed, the tense (has been vs. had been) indicates an important distinction! Has been implies that what the speaker said is still relevant in the present. Had been would imply that the matter is closed.
The minister said that the matter has been taken up with Saudi ...
A good rule of thumb is to remember that have got can be used to mean have1.
1(Though it's very likely that haven't got any money in the example should mean "doesn't have any money", the alternate interpretation in BrE, "haven't obtained/received any money", can't be ruled out. For more details, see the discussion in comments under this answer.)
Use "I'll tell my friends that I have started learning computers."
(In other words, no need to change the tense because the reporting verb is for the future time.)
Reported speech is also known as indirect speech, or as stated in Wikipedia,
Indirect speech, also known as reported speech or indirect discourse, is a means of expressing the content of ...
Your concern seems to be this: "Why doesn't the author backshift the verbs in reports of Jem's simple past statements to the past perfect?"
I think the best answer is simply that we don't always do that in English. In fact, in my speech I rarely do it. Here's an example where I wouldn't: My wife recently started work on a graduate degree. An ...
Mom said, "Don't trust strangers".
When you change an imperative sentence from direct to indirect (reported) speech, you don't change the tense in the reported speech; you keep the present tense. What you should do is that you change the reporting speech into should or to-infinitive clause as follows:
Mom told me that I shouldn't trust strangers or
The original sentence:
"The earth is flat." (believed by someone in the 5th century)
The reported sentence:
In the 5th century people believed that the earth was/is flat.
From Practical English Usage by M. Swan:
When reporting present and future tenses, after a past reporting verb: [w]e are more likely to change the original speaker's tenses if ...
With a timeless property like that, your version (with is) is possible; but it is not usual.
The habit in English of converting the tense of reported speech in the past ("He believed 'It is round'" => "He believed it was round") is so strong, that it tends to overcome logical objections like yours.
I agree that options 2 and 3 are correct if they still pray every day and that only option 3 is correct if they no longer pray every day.
But the question as given is select the one which best expresses the same sentence.
I hate questions like this because they provide incomplete information.
I personally believe that if they still pray every day that ...
You're talking about backshifting, which is common in indirect speech, but not required. For events that happened in the past and are complete, it makes more sense to backshift.
My sister said that she wanted to see the movie.
She wanted to see the movie, you all saw the movie, done. End of story.
But let's say you have not yet gone to see the movie....
a) I asked if he and my father had been twins.
= I asked, "Were he and my father twins?"
b) I asked if he and my father were twins.
= I asked, "Are he and my father twins?"
If he and/or your father has passed away/ died, use (a). Else, use (b).
I believe the author is trying to say that the main character thought (without letting it be known to others, i.e., to herself) the following: “Unless you try to talk to guys, genius.”
This could be made clearer by writing it with quotation marks, like so:
“Unless you try to talk to guys, genius,” I thought to myself.
Here is our original sentence, in direct speech:
Person X: Since they arrived, he's been very happy.
To report that sentence, which was said in the past, in indirect speech, there are a few ways to change the tenses:
(a) Person X said that since they had arrived, he had been very happy.
(b) Person X said that since they arrived, he was very happy.
With "reported speech" the important thing is to explain the information, not the words, to your listener. The information need to be true and make sense to your listener now. In the Original Poster's example, if stealing is against the law now then we can use either of the following sentences:
She was told that it was against the law to steal.
It's more British English than American:
"As though she hadn't got enough V. P. of her own! "
BRAVE NEW WORLD by Aldous Huxley
Theoretically, 'haven't got' changes to 'hadn't got', and 'don't have' changes
to 'didn't have'.
It might depend on whether the exam is American or British.
Let's suppose Alice said "You should only connect to people you know well", and Bob has to decide how to tell other people about this later. Bob needs to choose between saying...
1: Alice said that you should only connect to people you know well.
2: Alice said that you should only connect to people you knew well.
Both versions are ...
If I were to say to a native speaker of American English, "I should go to college", the listener would understand me to mean "I ought to go to college".
If he later reported to a third person what I had said to him, he would say, "Tim said he should to go to college". The reported form would not differ from the direct form.
In everyday American speech, "...
I take it this is advice you got from a teacher or English book?
What they mean is: When you want to say that someone spoke certain words, but you don't say who they were talking to, you generally use "said". But when you do specify who they were talking to, you use "tell".
Sonia said that Fred was in the hospital. (Not specifying who she was speaking to....
In this case there is no need to 'backshift' tomorrow because the report and the original occur on the same day: tomorrow is the 'next day' with respect to both. If you said 'the next day' you would compel your hearer to perform an extra layer of 'processing' to figure out that the departure day is tomorrow.
Similarly, if you were reporting something he ...
Well, that's a long story! The normal pattern of tense changes in reported speech is:
DIRECT SPEECH ----------------- REPORTED SPEECH
Present simple ...................... past simple
Present continuous ............... past continuous
Past simple ........................... past perfect
Present perfect simple .......... past perfect simple
Present perfect ...