Grammatical Point: present tense in the past
Present Tense in the Past
I answered a post recently, talking about something that happened in the past but using present tense. The present tense was corrected to imperfect tense which to me alters what I was trying to convey, albeit badly it would seem.
Here is my English phrase,
“I was told it is out of date” - By using the present tense “is”, I am quoting what I was told at that particular time.
Another example of the above:
Yesterday my wife said to me “You cannot do that” - another example of the present tense in the past.
I gather by the correction of my post that this form of construction is not possible in Spanish, is this true?
17 Answers
Eddy, technically, this sentence is incorrect, this is reported speech which corresponds to:
Direct speech: My friend told me: “ It is out of date” -
Reported speech: My friend told me (that) it was out of date.
Same in Spanish:
MI amigo me dijo: Este está pasado de fecha.
MI amigo me dijo que estaba pasado de fecha.
Second sentence:
Yesterday my wife said to me “You cannot do that” - another example of the present tense in the past.
This is not using present in the past, but a direct speech, where you always use the tense which was used at that particular moment.
The above is direct speech.
Indirect speech:
My wife told me I could not do that. Me dijo mi mujer que no podía hacer esto.
Yesterday my wife said to me “You cannot do that” - another example of the present tense in the past.
Of course you can! When you say that you were told "it was out of date", you are recalling the event, which is why you use past tense; when you say "it is out of date", even if you were told that, it is still out of date right now indeed. Grammarians have an absurd obsession with tense matching that imposes random correspondences over common sense.
I gather by the correction of my post that this form of construction is not possible in Spanish, is this true?
Same thing: "había caducado" is a mental recollection; "ha caducado" is an absolute statement which is as true now as it was when you were told that. It is perfect Spanish, no matter what anyone says.
Eddy, technically, this sentence is incorrect,
Technically, if you don't believe me, I can quote you the RAE and many other modern grammars explaining that the traditional tense correspondences cannot be followed as if they were mathematical rules, as it was dictated traditionally by imitating the precepts of the Latin grammar (which almost no one followed then); you have to take pragmatic and lexical factors into consideration in these cases. For example, what is wrong with this sentence?
Me dijeron que el sol es una estrella pequeña.
Is it compulsory to say "era una estrella pequeña" only because the main verb is in past tense? Of course not! This time "mismatch" is known in Spanish grammars as "doble acceso", and the newest grammar of the Academies (RAE and the other 21) give these example as a perfectly grammatical sentences:
El jefe comunicó el martes pasado que el dibujante está trabajando estos días...
Juan nos dijo que María está embarazada.
So, as I said, the original sentence is perfect in Spanish, because it was out of date then, but it remains out of date, so the present tense makes sense now.
I'll check an English grammar just in case, but I seriously doubt that these examples are all unacceptable in English.
P.S. I have checked with two colleagues of mine, English (native) teachers for students who are going to the university, and both of them believe that Eddy's sentence is perfectly correct English (part of their job is to teach how to write proper English).
Heidita said:
Well, this is grammar, in grammar, especially English grammar, the present tense is not acceptable here.
It may not be according to grammar rules, but we use mixed tenses all the time in English speech.
My wife told me that she is going to Florida tomorrow.
Yesterday I heard that the TV is broken.
Heidi said
Eddy, technically, this sentence is incorrect,
I am sorry Heidi but it is not technically incorrect especially in English. I also believe Lazarus's example indicates it is correct in Spanish as well.
Me dijeron que el sol es una estrella pequeña.
If you do not use the present tense and say "era una estrella pequeña" then you could be effectively saying that the sun no longer exists. This would apply to both languages.
Here's another example of when it can be correct in Spanish to use the present tense to talk about events in the past. It's called the Present Historic. There is a section in my current course to point out this other use of the Present in Spanish. (As well as being possible to use the present tense to express future events. ej Mañana me voy a ......)
Eso se llama presente historico: Se utiliza el presente para narrar hechos pasados.
I have heard this used in English too, more by people from the States but also here in England, for example:
**Let me tell you about what happened to me a few days ago. I'm driving along the road, and suddenly, a cat runs out in front of the car...*
From Wikipedia -
Presente histórico, usado para referirse a hechos sucedidos en la historia que estrictamente hablando ya son parte del pasado: "El hombre llega a la luna en 1969".
Grammarians have an absurd obsession with tense matching that imposes random correspondences over common sense.
Well, this is grammar, in grammar, especially English grammar, the present tense is not acceptable here.
You are looking at a Tv which is not working NOW.
And you say: Hey, my wife already told me this was not working.
So what makes you think that the Tv is not working now? I would certainly understand it that way.
There are very strict rules for direct and indirect speech in English grammar, just like for passive voice, which, incidentially, are not well known by English speakers.
Thanks for all your answers, however, after studying all the foregoing comments I am convinced that my original statement, “I was told it is out of date” would be correct in both English and Spanish. I will, however, leave the post open in case anyone else has something to add.
I have no idea whose page this is or if it's to be trusted but just out of interest the very first reference that Google brought up on reported speech said this: Reported Speech - English Grammar
If the sentence starts in the past, there is often backshift of tenses in Reported speech.
but then this
the backshift of tenses is not necessary, e.g. when statements are still true.
The "Miriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage" (1989 ed.) refers to two schools of thought on this topic ("sequence of tenses"): "natural sequence of tenses" and "attracted sequence of tenses. The article is too long (for me) to type in here but ends with the sentence "We suggest that you will be a lot happier if you simply do not worry about them."
It should come as no surprise that the thrust of the article supports the opinion offered by Lazarus (in his earlier post).
P.S. I have checked with two colleagues of mine, English (native) teachers for students who are going to the university, and both of them believe that Eddy's sentence is perfectly correct English (part of their job is to teach how to write proper English).
This is no surprise to me, as a matter of fact, I posted an exercise on passive voice here and no native English speaker was sure how to do that. (in English)
Earlier today I wanted to see a movie tonight but now that I am home I prefer to go to bed early.
I wonder what this has got to do with using present in the past??
this is a past tense sequence and then a present tense sequence, obviously both in the appropriate tense.
The best definition of grammar is how speakers say things in order to be understood.
This is not grammar, this is how people speak
How many people say " I'm gonna go...." ? Well, withouth any doubt, they will be understood, however, this is grammartically incorrect.
The best definition of grammar is how speakers say things in order to be understood.
Using this definition, the most grammatical speech/writing is going to be a way of saying things that is most widely understood.
Were you taught universal truths in your youth? Then you could say something like I was taught that the best way to have a friend is to be a friend. [past tense followed by present tense] Is there another tense sequence that would make sense? I can't think of any.
Reproted speech has, technically, very strict rules, which has nothing to do with how people actually speak. The same in passive voice.
I mean:
He was bought a book.
sounds beatifully Chinese to many, as Jenny and others told me, but this would be a correct passive form, using preferably the indirect object as the subject, not possible in Spanish that I know of, for:
Somebody bought Peter a book.
For reported speech look here, and we are talking reported speech here, I am exclusively talking about English grammar here-
My thoughts regarding English grammar:
In regards to the following example given by Eddy:
I was told (that) it is out of date
This type of sentence is a clear example of what is often referred to as indirect quotation (oratio oblique) or indirect reporting of statements.
One thing that should be pointed out about this type of discourse is that the person doing the reporting is generally free to treat the indirect quotation as he would any other event; i.e. the quotation is reported from the reporter's perspective and is colored by his knowledge of the world.
The fact that indirect quotation allows a given statement to be tempered by the reporter's understanding of the world and grants some level of flexibility in regards to tense. Namely, it makes it possible to use the present tense in the subordinate clause even when the introductory clause is in the past tense. This most commonly occurs when a statement was either (1) recently made or (2) has a lasting significance.
In some cases, it is possible to use either the past or the present without much difference, but in other cases, using one or the other can lend a slightly different aspect to the utterance.
I will list a few examples below to illustrate what I mean by this. In each example, I will start by giving a direct quotation followed by examples of indirect quotations related to the statement. In the space below each set of examples, I will discuss the significance of each statement and attempt to highlight any possible ambiguities or differences:
John: "I don't want to die!"
1). John told me that he didn't want to die.
2). John told me that he doesn't want to die.
In both examples, it is clearly presented that at some point in the past, John made a statement to the effect that he had no desire to die; however, only in the second example is it clear that John is indeed still alive. What's more, it is only this second sentence which gives the reader an inkling into the immediacy of this sentiment.
Father: "I want you to get a college education."
1). My father said that he wanted me to get a college education.
2). My father said that he wants me to get a college education.
Again, in these two examples, only is the second example, in which the subordinate clause carries the present tense, do we know unambiguously that the fathers desire for his son to further his education remains strong all the way into the present. For example, in the first sentence above it is unclear whether the father still has such hopes for his son or whether he gave them up long ago.
Copernicus: "The Earth orbits the sun."
1). I believe that it was Copernicus who first mentioned that the Earth orbited the sun.
2). I believe that it was Copernicus who first mentioned that the Earth orbits the sun.
While it might be possible for either statement to be uttered, as an English speaker, I would generally prefer the latter because only in this sentence is the lasting significance of this assertion made evident, and it is only in this particular construction that my perspective of the world is allowed to manifest itself (i.e. as the reporter of Copernicus' utterance, it is my current understanding that what he said is indeed the case).
And back to Eddy's original statement:
Somebody: "That is out of date"
1). I was told (that) it was out of date.
2). I was told (that) it is out of date
From my perspective, either would be possible, and in many contexts, I think that I would probably choose the first option; however, I can also think of several instances where I would use the present tense to stress the fact that the statement reflects the current state of affairs.
For example, walking into a computer store from which I had just purchased obsolete anti-virus software, I might say something like: I need to return this. I was told that it is out of date, and that I need something more current.
Without belaboring the point anymore than I already have, I just want to mention that I am not basing this discussion strictly on my own native understanding of the language but have also checked with about a half dozen reasonably reliable grammar resources that I have laying around the house, and each of these is consistent with what has already been mentioned regarding the use of the present tense to report recently made statements or those of lasting significance.
In addition, there are plenty of examples in both contemporary literature, legal documents and news outlets to consider such usage "standard:"
1). [H]e was told that students trained in local schools are not graduating with the ability to adequately fill job requirements.
2). [H]e mentioned that the dropout rate in the school division is at 1.47 percent, the lowest it has been in 10 years.
3). [H]e mentioned that he has been cooking since age 10.
4). He stated that respect is of paramount importance to gangs, and that gang members will shoot members of a rival gang to enhance the reputation of their own gang
My thoughts regarding Spanish grammar:
As usual, Laz' thoughts appear spot on in this regard. It seems that in both contemporary Spanish and English the rules are very similar. Again, I have cross-referenced a couple of different reliable sources (including the Nueva Gramática de la Lengua, cited by Lazarus) and found them both to be in accordance with the idea that the verb in the subordinate clause can be conjugated in some form of the present to appropriately highlight the fact that the indirectly quoted speech refers to both:
?A situation that continues to have significance at the time that it is reported
?A state of affairs that was relevant at the time of its utterance by the original speaker
This is why it is referred as "doble acceso" (or by some sources as "doble anclaje"). In other words, because the verbal relationship is temporally anchored in both the time of its original utterance as well as in the time that it is reported, a form of the present tense can be used.
Again, there are plenty of examples that can attest to this usage readily available on the web, but cataloging them here would probably only serve to belabor the point more than I already have.
One additional point of interest brought up by the NGLE Manual is the fact that if the situation described by the verb in the subordinate clause cannot (whether due to grammatical or contextual factors) be extended back to the time of the original utterance then this type of construction cannot occur. This can be illustrated by the examples given within the manual's text:
?Nos explicó hace unos meses que Clara está embarazada.
?*Nos explicó hace unos años que Clara está embarazada.
Again, this same interpretation, in many cases, can probably be extended to English as well:
? Last night, he told us that Clara is pregnant.
