|
thebard
|
Direct/Indirect speech
|
what changes happen to this utterance from direct to indirect speech?
Rainey said: "husbands and wives went off to work and not until 6o �clock did they ever connect".
Rainey said that .....................
Thanks
|
14 Mar 2011
|
|
|
|
[email protected]
|
|
Rainey said that husbands and wives had gone off to work and...
(the rest of the sentence makes no sense for me!!!!!) |
14 Mar 2011
|
|
|
om aziz
|
|
Rainey said that husbands and wives had gone off to work and not until 6 �o clock had they ever been connected.I hope it �s correct!
|
14 Mar 2011
|
|
|
sclail
|
I �m English and I have to say the rest of the sentence after "work" doesn �t make a lot of sense to me either!
Maybe it would be better: and they didn �t see each other again until 6 o � clock
|
14 Mar 2011
|
|
|
thebard
|
Thank you all
I think the problem is with the second part of the sentence which taken from an authentic english material. the rule says the simple past becomes past perfect so why not:
Rainey said that husbands and wives had gone off to work and not until 6 �o clock had they ever connected.
what do you think colleagues?
|
14 Mar 2011
|
|
|
edrodmedina
|
Rainey said: "Husbands and wives went off to work and it wasn �t (or was not) until 6o �clock that they ever reconnected".
How does that sound? I might leave out the ever. Rainey said "Husbands and wives went off to work and it wasn �t (or was not) until 6o �clock that they reconnected".
|
14 Mar 2011
|
|
|
om aziz
|
|
@thebard yes I do agree with you !
|
14 Mar 2011
|
|
|
Zora
|
|
Ed �s suggestion is probably the best... and I agree that it is an extremely awkward and quite unnatural sounding sentence. It sounds as if it was translated literally from somewhere.
|
14 Mar 2011
|
|
|
htunde
|
|
... and they had not connected until 6. |
14 Mar 2011
|
|
