She said that she <is><was> getting married (2025)

I am doing some exercise on indirect speech, and the four following exercises are confusing me, so which is the correct answer in each of them?

1. He told me that he (had gone / had been) to the cinema yesterday.

2. She said that she (is / was) getting married next year. (She told me so 10 hours ago or days ago)

3. He said that he (was sick / had been sick) the day before.

4. He told me that his trip (was / had been) great.

tunaafi said:

All the forms are possible.

Click to expand...

Grammar wise, which forms are correct; from purists' point of view?

It's not a question of purists versus non-purists.

The safest thing to do is always to backshift. Backshifting is never wrong.

(If the term "backshift" is unclear, see Dictionary additions forum: backshift.)

Loob said:

It's not a question of purists versus non-purists.

The safest thing to do is always to backshift. Backshifting is never wrong.

(If the term "backshift" is unclear, see Dictionary additions forum: backshift.)

Click to expand...

But what if I was talking about someone's emotional state (happy, angry, etc.) or someone's physical quality (tall, short, etc.) in the past?, for example:

Peter was happy.

Michael said that Peter (was / had been) happy?

Yes, back shifting is probably what they want in this exercise but that's not the way people talk in real life.
Peter was happy.
She said that Peter had been happy.

While this would work in some cases depending on what you're trying to say, in the majority of cases you would still use the simple past...even in the dependent clause. Almost anything is possible which is what makes English, in general, an easy language to learn.

bandini said:

Yes, back shifting is probably what they want in this exercise but that's not the way people talk in real life.
Peter was happy.
She said that Peter had been happy.

While this would work in some cases depending on what you're trying to say, in the majority of cases you would still use the simple past...even in the dependent clause. Almost anything is possible which is what makes English, in general, an easy language to learn.

Click to expand...

See Also

marry to/ marry with

We are talking about Peter's being happy at that moment, not having been happy days ago, so we should use the past simple?

tunaafi said:

As Loob said earlier, backshifting is never wrong.

Click to expand...

My father was tall.
He said that his father had been tall?

MrKh said:

We are talking about Peter's being happy at that moment, not having been happy days ago, so we should use the past simple?

Click to expand...

If the situation still applies at the time of reported speech, there's no need to backshift:

"I'm happy," Peter said (in the past).
Peter said that he is happy (Peter is still happy)

Backshifting is not a "rule" in the sense of being something that must be done, always. It's just a teaching tool. If you backshift or not is contextual, governed by context/speaker perspective, and not by teaching methods that masquerade as "rules."

SevenDays said:

If the situation still applies at the time of reported speech, there's no need to backshift:

"I'm happy," Peter said (in the past).
Peter said that he is happy (Peter is still happy)

Backshifting is not a "rule" in the sense of being something that must be done, always. It's just a teaching tool. If you backshift or not is contextual, governed by context/speaker perspective, and not by teaching methods that masquerade as "rules."

Click to expand...

I am talking about the situation in the past that is no longer present.
Michael: "Peter was happy."
Michael told me that Peter (was or had been) happy?

MrKh said:

I am talking about the situation in the past that is no longer present.
Michael: "Peter was happy."
Michael told me that Peter (was or had been) happy?

Click to expand...

I would backshift:
Michael said "Peter is happy."
Michael told me that Peter was happy.
Michael said "Peter was happy last week."
Michael told me that Peter had been happy the previous week.

Loob said:

I would backshift:
Michael said "Peter is happy."
Michael told me that Peter was happy.
Michael said "Peter was happy last week."
Michael told me that Peter had been happy the previous week.

Click to expand...

But in case of permanent qualities and personal facts?
Michael: " Peter was tall."
Michael said that Peter (was / had been) tall.

Michael: "His name was Peter"
Michael said that his name (was / had been) Peter?

MrKh said:

Michael: " Peter was tall."
Michael said that Peter (was / had been) tall.

Michael: "His name was Peter"
Michael said that his name (was / had been) Peter?

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting in your direct speech that Peter is no longer tall. and that his name is no longer Peter?

tunaafi said:

Are you suggesting in your direct speech that Peter is no longer tall. and that his name is no longer Peter?

Click to expand...

That' what I am talking about, that height and name are permanent and do not change. So we do not backshift?

MrKh said:

That' what I am talking about, that height and name are permanent and do not change. So we do not backshift?

Click to expand...

Hmm, that's not quite right.
Granted, the height of a person doesn't usually change from one moment to the next, but the perception of height actually might!
I know that sounds strange but it's true.

In your example:

Michael: " Peter was tall."
Michael said that Peter (was / had been) tall.

Click to expand...

If Michael really said "Peter was tall" in direct speech, it strongly suggests that for some reason he's not tall anymore.
So without other context and explanation, I'd be inclined to report this statement as "Michael said that Peter had been tall"

If Michael had said in direct speech "Peter is tall" and if I had to convey this message to somebody else a day/week/month later, I'd say "Michael said that Peter is tall" (provided I believe him or know it to be true) or "Michael said that Peter was tall" (in case I've never seen Peter before and I'm trying to convey Michael's opinion only without adding my own opinion or knowledge/hearsay).

manfy said:

Hmm, that's not quite right.
Granted, the height of a person doesn't usually change from one moment to the next, but the perception of height actually might!
I know that sounds strange but it's true.

In your example:

If Michael really said "Peter was tall" in direct speech, it strongly suggests that for some reason he's not tall anymore.
So without other context and explanation, I'd be inclined to report this statement as "Michael said that Peter had been tall"

If Michael had said in direct speech "Peter is tall" and if I had to convey this message to somebody else a day/week/month later, I'd say "Michael said that Peter is tall" (provided I believe him or know it to be true) or "Michael said that Peter was tall" (in case I've never seen Peter before and I'm trying to convey Michael's opinion only without adding my own opinion or knowledge/hearsay).

Click to expand...

Michael's brother is deceased, and Michael is telling me that his brother was a tall man.

So, Michael said: My brother was tall.

I report to you that Michael said that his brother (was / had been) tall?

MrKh said:

Michael's brother is deceased, and Michael is telling me that his brother was a tall man.

Click to expand...

Well, that's crucial context that needs to be added when you ask such kind of question!
In this case most speakers surely use "had been tall" in reported speech (as has been suggested above before!)

manfy said:

Well, that's crucial context that needs to be added when you ask such kind of question!
In this case most speakers surely use "had been tall" in reported speech (as has been suggested above before!)

Click to expand...

But most of the opinions I read suggest that there is no need to backshift; that's why I'm so confused regarding this point.

manfy said:

"Michael said that Peter was tall" (in case I've never seen Peter before and I'm trying to convey Michael's opinion only without adding my own opinion or knowledge/hearsay).

Click to expand...

manfy said:

In this case most speakers surely use "had been tall" in reported speech (as has been suggested above before!)

Click to expand...

He is telling me about his deceased brother who I haven't ever seen, so isn't it supposed to be:
Michael said that his brother was tall?
Why do you say that most speakers would use (had been tall)?

MrKh said:

He is telling me about his deceased brother who I haven't ever seen, so isn't it supposed to be:
Michael said that his brother was tall?
Why do you say that most speakers would use (had been tall)?

Click to expand...

If it's related to a person who has died, it's a bit of a special case. You normally don't refer to dead people in present tense.
For instance, if your friend died a short while ago and he was 1.9m tall, you wouldn't say that "he is very tall", even though his actual height has not changed while being burried a few days. You'd always say "he was very tall", not because his height may have changed but because he no longer is among the living.
Similarly in reported speech the simple past in direct speech will normally be backshifted to past perfect.

The special case of choosing between backshifting and not backshifting happens in those cases when you report some recent statement that you believe or know to still be true:
From your example above:
Your friend just called you 5 minutes ago and she said: "I'm getting married next year!"
5 minutea later you tell your friend: "Susan just called me to say that she's getting married next year".
There's no real need to backshift because you know that she wouldn't change her mind in such a short time and the original statement is almost certaily still valid.

However, if you report the same thing 3 days later to another friend, you may be inclinde to say "Susan called me the other day and said that she was getting married next year"
Why? Because the info is 3 days old and you can't know if it is still true and therefore you backshift and just report what she said that day. (Some people do tend to change their mind quite quickly and 3 days can make a world of a difference! Been there, done that. )

Good question! I'll have to leave the formal answer to a native speaker.

But for myself, no! I'd not say "his name had been Jeff" but only "his brother's name was Jeff".
I have no logical explanation but 'had been' sounds off, even with dead people.

manfy said:

Good question! I'll have to leave the formal answer to a native speaker.

But for myself, no! I'd not say "his name had been Jeff" but only "his brother's name was Jeff".
I have no logical explanation but 'had been' sounds off, even with dead people.

Click to expand...

This point confuses me a lot.

Similarly, no one would ever say: he asked me where I had been born!, but: he asked me where I was born.

That's what I mean by past facts and permanent qualities (place and date of birth, name, height, etc.).