The short answer is that no, they do not mean the same thing.
The first with an inflection of the progressive construction be playing is a simple statement of the evidentiary future, but the second with an inflection of will play is a statement of a future that the speaker insists must come to pass.
Probabilities vs Demands
When someone says:
I will not ...
She may have reasoned that it would have been against her own economic self interest to disclose the worst case scenario.
This sentence has an embedded content clause marked by the subordinator that:
it would have been against her own economic self interest to disclose the worst case scenario,
This content clause has an extraposed subject. Here, dummy it ...
It is not correct to say that the tense of the verb in a reported time clause never changes. It depends on whether the action or state in the time-clause is still true at the time of reporting.
As an example of no tense change, imagine that Person A, three months ago, said to person B: "I will go to Italy when I finish school".
If Person A is still at ...
As jwpat7 pointed out, it depends on circumstances. Here is how you might use each tense, with examples for each tense:
1.) "Hey, Jim, did Jack tell you he eats your chocolate?"
In this example, Fred is really informing Jim that Jack eats Jim's chocolate, even though Fred is asking a question. We might call the questioner (Fred) a snitch, an ...
"Would" is used after past reporting verbs where "will" was used in direct speech. This is contained in Practical English Usage (Michael Swan, OUP 1995, n° 604, indirect speech). Therefore, the two formulations can be used for the same purpose.
direct: Tomorrow will be fine.
indirect: The forecast said that the next day would be ...
It's more to the point that you cannot use must in the past tense: it's had to.
In the original sentence, ordered is in the past tense, so what is ordered must either be entirely uninflected ("subjunctive") or expressed as "future-of-the-past"1.
A. My boss ordered that the legal documents be sent to him before lunch.
B. My boss ordered that the legal ...
This is reported speech, where we backshift tenses. Backshifting happens when a verb tense is shifted back to a past form in reported speech.
What was said by John: "I am hungry." In reported speech, we see "John said that he was hungry."
In your example "I told him I wasn’t playing soccer anymore", what was actually said was &...
'I am a teacher', when reported becomes 'He said he was a teacher'.
'I was a teacher' becomes 'He said he had been a teacher'.
'I have been a teacher' equally becomes 'He said he had been a teacher'.
'I had been a teacher before I joined the army' when reported becomes 'he said he had been a teacher before he had joined the army'.
The following are all grammatical in this context, and mean the same thing (commas optional):
He said (that) if I want to come, to call him before 5:00.
He said (that) if I wanted to come, to call him before 5:00.
He said (that), if I want to come, I should/can call him before 5:00.
He said (that), if I wanted to come, I should/could call him before 5:00.
One can write a sentence with a partial quotation:
Direct speech: We live in a madhouse! We have to move.
She says they "live in a madhouse" most of the time.
This is unobtrusive: the quotation is direct speech, because the exact words are repeated, made to fit into the syntax of the sentence, which was easy enough. It is a predicate, so it fits ...
The default is that, in the words of the ‘Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English’ (LSGSWE), ‘the tense of the verb in the indirect quote agrees with the past tense of the reporting verb’. That is the case in ‘He said he liked pizza.’
However, the LSGSWE goes on to say ‘although this use of past tense in reported speech is common, reported ...
"Did she even ask you what you were doing tomorrow night? If you were busy?"
Your example is about indirect reported speech that is using the backshift preterite (that is, a past-tense verb) for the subordinate clauses that are expressing what had been asked by her. She had asked something like:
"What are you doing tomorrow night? Are you busy?"
I believe it's in that tense because he is referring what the plans were at that time, not the actual future events that will be occurring tomorrow night.
If your plans change you don't say "We are going to the game next week but it's too expensive so we are watching at home instead."
you say "We were going to the game next week but it's too expensive so ...
Both are correct.
Melissa said she WAS going to the mall.
This implies that at some point she had informed you that she was going to the mall. Whether she went there is ambiguous.
Melissa said she IS going to the mall.
This implies that she is on her way to the mall.
Depending on the situation, either could be right.
For example, you're in ...
The reporting has no influence on the tense. Imagine this conversation:
"She went to Spain when she finished school."
"Did she say that herself?"
"Yes. She said she went to Spain when she finished school."
Now let me amplify a bit:
When thinking about this situation, one might think of "reported speech" as if a reporter ...
No, they're not right. But in your example, "He said that while he was watching television, the light (went/had gone) out.", the choice compatible with the sequence-of-tenses rule is "went", not "had gone". The light going out is contemporaneous with the watching of TV, so they are reported using the same tense: "was watching" and "went out". You'd only ...
I asked if he hunts bears. Yes, he hunts bears for a living. He is a bear hunter. He kills bears.
Yesterday, I asked if he killed the bear lying on the road. No, he has not killed any bear since the hunting season has closed. Someone else killed the bear illegally.
He speaks French. Last week he spoke French to his mother. He has not spoken French since ...
The use of present perfect has caused indicates that the event happened in the recent past and its effects are still current.
Imagine a meeting within the first hour of the earthquake:
We held a meeting in Washington.
The president learned that the earthquake has caused havoc all across the country.
The National Guard was mobilised.
All of those ...
Your book is not wrong, but it is not right, either. Every one of the answers except (a) may be acceptable in some contexts; and I'm not sure that an appropriate context for (a) is impossible.
b. I asked Brian this morning about Harry. He said that they have known each other for years, and anything he says can be relied on.
c. I asked Harry about Tom. He ...
Interestingly, both sentences are grammatical, and they mean the same thing
-- at least they do in a context where all uses of we refer to the same two people.
He said we would get married when we get older.
He said we would get married when we got older.
Rules taught in schools about what verb forms must be used in conditional clause constructions ...
Both are grammatical and mean ALMOST the same thing. The difference is that the second tends to convey the implication that plans have changed and what he said is no longer true – one can almost hear a "but" following the sentence.
He said we would get married when we get older.
Last night Billy told me we'd get married in a couple of years, when I'm 18.
In answer to OP's original [amended here]
According to Longman Dictionary [reference needed],
"Why not" is a "spoken phrase" used to say that you agree with a suggestion.
My question is: Can I use Why not? in 'formal writing' as in the
We then thought we might investigate whether an increase in the
Your examples don't work, as they change the intended meaning of the original speaker:
'I could meet you at the airport.'
This means it is possible for the speaker to meet at the airport
He said that he could have met us at the airport.
In contrast, this means that at one time it was possible for the reported speaker to meet at the airport, but ...
Be is not always required to mark passive voice. There are other constructions like the one in the example given where the passive is not marked by be (CaGEL p1245):
i Most of the sense verbs
I heard the window broken.
ii Get and have:
She got/had the house painted.
I had my wallet stolen.
iii Like, want, report,fear and order; here the past-participial is ...
1: Mom asked Gramma why she hasn't been answering
2: Mom asked Gramma why she hadn't been answering
3: Mom asked Gramma why she didn't answer
In both #1 and #2, the implication is that Gramma has repeatedly failed to answer. But #1 further implies she was still ignoring the phone right up until when Mom asked why (or, noting StoneyB's comments ...
Strict sequence-of-tenses gets muddy when Speech time, Event time and Reference time overlap, as in your instance.
When I got home yesterday, John called and said he will arrive next week.
Here, the Event time (next week, the time of the event ‘I’ am speaking about in this clause) happens to lie in the future with respect to both the time when John called (...
Having looked at the site that @bigbadonk420 referred to in his answer, I disagree with that answer and interpretation of the quoted site. On my reading of that site, the two options for reported speech are (using the OP's quotation):
with backshift: He said that his name was Harry
without backshift: He says that his name is Harry
There is no ...