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 ...
The direct speech in your example is a question which asks if there was a chair there at some time in the past. When you report it, you place the question further back in time, so that it becomes Somebody asked if there had been a chair there at the last lesson.
This is Valley girl slang used to introduce quoted speech, also known as a quotative. It's a way of quoting a speaker by describing them according to their statement. It's similar to saying "he's like: [quote]", or "he goes: [quote]". "He's all: [quote]" can be read as "he was all like this: [quote]".
Here's an example from Do you speak American? ...
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 ...
'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 ...
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 ...
I would like and I want are different ways of expressing volition. For that reason, it would be inaccurate to report I would like to swim as She said she wanted to swim. It has to be She said she would like to swim.
This use of would is sometimes described as having ‘unreal meaning’, but in cases such as this it is perhaps better seen as expressing a ...
This is correct:
“You Bi would like to swim.”
= “You Bi wants to swim.”
→ “You Bi said she wanted to swim.”
You can also use would unchanged:
“I would like to swim.”
→ “You Bi said she would like to swim.”
Here, you can analyse would as conditional—if You Bi went swimming, she would like it. Would is also (morphologically) the past form of will,...
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 ...
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 ...
"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?"
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 ...
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 ...
NB: I find it nicer to put "to say" before "that", though why I find that nicer is probably a subject for another post. I've done that here.
If the class was in the past then the first example is fine.
Lucy expected you in the class on Thursday. Where were you?
Didn't she get the message? I sent her an email to say that I wouldn't come to the class.
The parentheses are part of the speech; if there could be any doubt, the context makes it unquestionable:
—Еh bien, mon prince. Genes et Lucques ne sont plus que des apanages, des поместья, de la famille Buonaparte. Non, je vous previens, que si vous ne me dites pas, que nous avons la guerre, si vous vous permettez encore de pallier toutes les infamies, ...
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 ...