[Grammar] Indirect narration of- He said to me,"Who was the first P.M of India?"

[Sahil Dhankhar]

This is not my homework.
Which of the following is correct indirect narration of the sentence- He said to me,"Who was the first P.M. of India?"
1- He asked me who the first P.M. of India was.
2- He asked me who the first P.M. of India had been.

 

[Sahil Dhankhar]

I have read somewhere that if the statement part of a direct sentence includes two or more actions (time dependent clauses) then we don't need to change the simple past tense to past perfect and past continuous to past perfect continuous. Why so?
Example-
He said to me,"I was dancing." - He said to me that he had been dancing.
He said to me, "I was dancing and my brother was singing." - He said to me that he was dancing and his brother was singing.

 

[emsr2d2]

I [STRIKE]have[/STRIKE] read somewhere that if the statement part of a direct sentence includes two or more actions (time dependent clauses) then we don't need to change the simple past tense to past perfect and past continuous to past perfect continuous. Why is that so?

For example:
He said to me,"I was dancing." - He [STRIKE]said to[/STRIKE] told me [that] he had been dancing.
He said to me, "I was dancing and my brother was singing." - He [STRIKE]said to[/STRIKE] told me that he [STRIKE]was[/STRIKE] had been dancing and his brother [STRIKE]was[/STRIKE] had been singing.

As Piscean said, that "rule" is nonsense. It has nothing to do with how many actions are mentioned. Wherever you read it, if that's definitely what was said, you should disregard it.

Note my corrections above, particularly that, in indirect speech when information has been imparted, we generally change "said to me" to "told me".

 

[Sahil Dhankhar]

You are right. But here, different tutors stick to different rules and so I decide the best way after discussing it with you people.

 

[Sahil Dhankhar]

Tell me whether to change "said" to "told" is necessary or just advisable.

Also, is it true that if we have to use "or" like I did in the above sentence, we can use "whether" only and not "if"?
Also, in your reply, in the first sentence "that" put in red brackets shows that it is optional. Why isn't the same case with the second subject?

 

[Sahil Dhankhar]

Kindly tell me the instances when, even the reported verb indicating past tense, we don't change simple past tense into past perfect tense and past continuous tense into past perfect continuous tense.

In my view, one instance is a sentence indicating "historical fact".
For example:
He said to me," India got freedom in 1947." - He told me that India got freedom in 1947.

 

[Sahil Dhankhar]

He said to me, "When I reached the station, the train had left."
What will be the indirect narration of the above sentence?

1- He told me that when he reached the station, the train had left.
2- He told me that when he had reached the station, the train had left.

 

[Tdol]

You are right. But here, different tutors stick to different rules and so I decide the best way after discussing it with you people.

We tend to be a bit flexible about changing tenses in indirect speech, and include meaning and intention, while many traditional grammars go for absolute rules.

 

[Sahil Dhankhar]

Okay, then, do I assume that if the statement part of a direct narration includes two actions of past which are linked to each other in such a way that one action precedes another and such difference is indicated by using simple past tense and past perfect tense, then we should not try to change the simple past tense part into past perfect when making indirect narration?


He said, "As soon as I saw my father, I dropped the cigarette."
What will be the correct indirect narration of the above sentence?
1- He said that as soon as he saw his father he dropped his cigarette.
2- He said that as soon as he had seen his father, he had dropped the cigarette.