Reported speech/answers

Reported speech/answers
Message from mohammad51 posted on 18-10-2019 at 18:36:12 (D | E | F)
Hello dear teachers
I noticed this question in this forum is answered in two different ways.
Could any one tell me why or give me a reason?
Thank you in advance.
---
They should go to the police'. - He said that they should go to the police.
second answer:they should have gone to the police -or- that they should have gone to the police.
Q 6 They should go to the police. = He said .... ( they should have gone) ?
Link


-------------------
Edited by lucile83 on 19-10-2019 09:55

---

Re: Reported speech/answers from here4u, posted on 18-10-2019 at 21:02:16 (D | E)
Hello!

He said: "They should go to the police." is a sentence in direct speech.
The indirect speech then becomes:
He said they should have gone to the police -or-
he said that they should have gone to the police.(which is exactly the same sentence!)[the relative pronoun "that" can be omitted.]

---

Re: Reported speech/answers from mohammad51, posted on 18-10-2019 at 22:21:42 (D | E)
Hello
Here it is in this site other than the above link
q 9. 'They should go to the police'. - He said that they should go to the police.

Link

So two answers according to this site
1- He said that they should have gone to the police.
2- He said that they should go to the police

---

Re: Reported speech/answers from mohammad51, posted on 19-10-2019 at 00:58:51 (D | E)
Hello
I searched many grammar pages and looked on many grammar books.
All confirm no shift changing to should , could , would , might etc...
One notice I found perhaps is helpful and supports the quiz owner why he\ she chose answer as :
They should go to the police. He said they should have gone to the police.
The idea behind if we supposed it talks about a hypothetical case ( never true)
We can use a perfect form with have + -ed form after modal verbs, especially where the report looks back to a hypothetical event in the past:
He said the noise might have been the postman delivering letters. (original statement: ‘The noise might be the postman delivering letters.’)
He said he would have helped us if we’d needed a volunteer. (original statement: ‘I’ll help you if you need a volunteer’ or ‘I’d help you if you needed a volunteer.’)
Used to and ought to do not change in indirect speech:
She said she used to live in Oxford. (original statement: ‘I used to live in Oxford.’)
The guard warned us that we ought to leave immediately. (original statement: ‘You ought to leave immediately.’)

-------------------
Edited by lucile83 on 19-10-2019 09:52

---

Re: Reported speech/answers from gerondif, posted on 21-10-2019 at 23:32:36 (D | E)
Hello
Sometimes a defective verb can't or won't follow the usual rules for indirect speech, because the replacing verb doesn't have the same meaning.
He must be rich ! (supposition)
He said he must be rich !
He said he had to be rich could have another meaning, obligation, that wouldn't fit here.

They should go to the police is a piece of advice about a future that hasn't happened yet.
He said they should go to the police, although reported and set in the past, is still a piece of advice about a future that hasn't happened yet, it would be a mistake to transform it into He said that they should have gone to the police which would be a regret about a thing that wasn't done in the past.

---

[POST A NEW REPLY] [Subscribe to this topic]

Forum > English only