# future adverbial phrases in past tenses



## ofriendragon

1. *He told me that there will be a meeting tomorrow.*
2. *He told me that there would be a meeting tomorrow.*
3. ----The American teacher will be here tomorrow.
---- *Oh,I thought that she was coming today*

Are they all correct? 
1. I think sentence1 is logically correct;
2. I'm familiar with *He told me that there would be a meeting (tomorrow---> the next day),* but if the meeting is to be held tomorrow --- the next day from when I am speaking,I think sentence2 is also correct.
3. I sense there is something like sentence2, but can I say *Oh,I thought that she was coming tomorrow?*


*I'd like to hear your idiomatic explanations about sentences 1-3*



Many thanks in advance.


----------



## El escoces

All three statements are correct, but beware that each will only work in the correct context. If you want, you could provide examples of how you propose to use each, to check that they have been used correctly.

EDIT:  And yes, you can also say "I thought she was coming tomorrow".


----------



## ofriendragon

Thank you! : -)


----------



## seadew

Hello,
As you know I'm sure you have two sentences in one in examples one and two.
He told me something. There will be a meeting tomorrow.
When you put them together the main verb (told in both cases) forces the following verb to agree with it (will goes to would). Although the rules of grammar do not allow sentence one, you often hear it and, in spoken English, it now goes without much notice. The second part of sentence three is also a double sentence (I thought something. What I thought (but I no longer think) was (to agree with thought in the past) this.
Hope this helps. Cheers


----------



## El escoces

> Although the rules of grammar do not allow sentence one, you often hear it and, in spoken English, it now goes without much notice.


 
I don't think I agree with this.

Are you saying that the following are ungrammatical?  

"What did the boss say?"  "He told me that there will be a meeting tomorrow to discuss our grievances."

(The Prime Minister): "As I announced yesterday, there will be a full review of public spending in the autumn."


----------



## seadew

I see the sentence "He told me that there will be" as ungrammatical, though it is now commonly accepted. 
In the second example "As I announced" is a subordinate clause and does not require the future tense following it to agree. In fact it would be off the graph, entirely unacceptable to say "As I announced yesterday, there would be...." But if you add 'that' you'd get something like "As (in the sense of since/given that) I announced yesterday that there would be xxx, you are expected to be there on time." Now the two sentences (clauses) are working together in harmony as dictated by the first verb.
Does that make sense with your understanding of how this works?


----------



## El escoces

Not entirely!

When they separated, she told him that he would never see his children again.  I have no difficulty with using would here, there is no other option.

She told me this morning that she will be here around six.  I still find this correct, and if we change it to "would", it takes on a different sense: "She told me she would be here by six, and now it's almost eight.  I do hope nothing has happened".  In that situation, you clearly couldn't say "She told me she will be here by..."

When I said I would take you out to dinner, I didn't mean to the Ritz!  OK
I can't believe it!  Danny just called, and told me that he will take me to the Ritz for dinner as soon as he gets back from New York.  No?


----------



## seadew

Um, I don't feel the nuance at all. But I have been teaching English for more years now than I should admit, and  I may be over-correct. Language changes and I think this item is one that different people find more or less acceptable. As I have said already, it increasingly goes down as perfectly acceptable though not in tune with the traditional rule.  
I sure hope Danny takes you to the Ritz! What fun!


----------



## El escoces

He said he _would_, but I'm not so sure.


----------



## shauna_liana

I would probably say it as "he told me there's a meeting tomorrow" because it flows better


----------



## shauna_liana

ofriendragon said:


> 1. *He told me that there will be a meeting tomorrow.*
> 2. *He told me that there would be a meeting tomorrow.*
> 3. ----The American teacher will be here tomorrow.
> ---- *Oh,I thought that she was coming today*
> 
> Are they all correct?
> 1. I think sentence1 is logically correct; when i say it out loud it sounds odd
> 2. I'm familiar with *He told me that there would be a meeting (tomorrow---> the next day),* but if the meeting is to be held tomorrow --- the next day from when I am speaking,I think sentence2 is also correct. even though the meeting is in the future, him telling you about it is in the past so this is correct
> 3. I sense there is something like sentence2, but can I say *Oh,I thought that she was coming **tomorrow?* this is along the same lines as number 2. while tomorrow refers to the future, the thought is in the past so this is also correct
> 
> 
> *I'd like to hear your idiomatic explanations about sentences 1-3*
> 
> 
> 
> Many thanks in advance.


----------



## ofriendragon

So the tense agreement is the first things first, however, the adverbial is relatively free. 

*He told me that there will be a meeting **tomorrow.* 
will ---> would 

Though *will *flows better in my Chinese mind, still I have to go with English native speakers in this respect and use would.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

ofriendragon said:


> So the tense agreement is the first things first, however, the adverbial is relatively free.
> 
> *He told me that there will be a meeting **tomorrow.*
> will ---> would
> 
> Though *will *flows better in my Chinese mind, still I have to go with English native speakers in this respect and use would.


 Hi OFD,

He told me there would be a meeting tomorrow is something one might say when someone says there isn't a meeting tomorrow.

He told me there will be a meeting tomorrow is what you say when there's no question of the meeting's having been cancelled.

I don't agree with the idea that one is always right and the other always wrong.  Each is appropriate in different situations.

Needless to say the English use the expressions with considerable flexibility, but a lot of careful speakers would distinguish between the meanings.


----------



## johndot

I’m sure the reason for the confusion is that written and spoken are being mixed up.
 
He told me, “There will be a meeting.”
 
I hope everyone agrees this is fine? Unfortunately, however, speech doesn’t have punctuation marks—we don’t (usually) go around saying things like “He told me quote there will be a meeting unquote.”
 
So we use the device of reported speech, signified by ‘that’, and the sentence has to become:
 
He told me that there would be a meeting.
 
And the third option is to use (lazy) direct speech without ‘that’ and without quotations, thus:
 
He told me (“) there will be a meeting (”).
 
This last format has an added advantage, as El escoces points out: by using ‘will’, the fact of the meeting is finite, unchangeable; using ‘would’ suggests godly intervention.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

johndot said:


> I’m sure the reason for the confusion is that written and spoken are being mixed up.
> 
> He told me, “There will be a meeting.”
> 
> I hope everyone agrees this is fine? Unfortunately, however, speech doesn’t have punctuation marks—we don’t (usually) go around saying things like “He told me quote there will be a meeting unquote.”
> 
> So we use the device of reported speech, signified by ‘that’, and the sentence has to become:
> 
> He told me that there would be a meeting.
> 
> And the third option is to use (lazy) direct speech without ‘that’ and without quotations, thus:
> 
> He told me (“) there will be a meeting (”).
> 
> This last format has an added advantage, as El escoces points out: by using ‘will’, the fact of the meeting is finite, unchangeable; using ‘would’ suggests godly intervention.


I not very happy about two points here, John.

a. Dropping the that is a very long-standing respectable habit in written as well as spoken English. I don't think we ought to represent it as _lazy_.

Here it is in Chapter 31 of Motteux's translation of Don Quixote which dates from 1701.

"I asked her if that Biscayan the other day had been there; and *she told me he had*, and that he was an honest fellow; I asked her too about the galley slaves, but she said she had not seen any as yet."

Here it is introducing reported speech in Chapter 6 of Huck Finn.

Pap warn't in a good humor - so he was his natural self. *He said he was down town*, and everything was going wrong.


b. I'm interested in your discussion of the relationship between reported and direct speech, but I find the insertion of inverted commas in the sentences distracting, unless we punctuate to make clear what is direct and what indirect speech.

I think that in both of Ofriendragon's two sentences:

1. *He told me that there will be a meeting tomorrow.*
2. *He told me that there would be a meeting tomorrow.*

What he actually said was, in both cases: 'There will be a meeting tomorrow.'

What causes the tense shift is the context in which the the sentences are spoken, as has already been suggested.


----------



## seadew

Funny, I'm not on the same wavelength about the two distinct meanings attributed to" He told me there will" and "he told me there would be". For me they are exactly the same in meaning, one being more grammatical than the other but no less common and easily understood. If we were in the conditional we could make a distinction between the 'real' nature of will/would as follows: "If there is a meeting (looks like it will happen), I'll  wear my new pink dress." As opposed to "If Jack were to ask me out (an impossible dream for a mere Cinderella like me), I would wear my new pink dress." Here the real/unreal nature of the situation is expressed in the choice of the auxiliary.


----------



## johndot

Yes, TT (post #11), I’m well aware that the ‘that’ of reported speech is a device which has all but been abandoned; I ‘reintroduced’ it simply to illustrate that, when it’s missing, the listener may (wrongly) interpret the sentence as being ungrammatical. In other words, both ‘will’ and ‘would’ can be shown to be correct—_even though ‘will’ can also be shown to be ‘_wrong’.
 
Or, to put it yet another way:
 
When writing, as we are doing here on the Forum, the use of (correct) punctuation paradoxically means that criticisms can be levelled more easily (because it’s there in black and white), but when speaking, criticisms may well be less accurate because much of the communication is ‘understood’ or taken for granted or assumed.
 
It could be debated (in a new thread of course!), that vocabulary and phraseology should therefore be as carefully used in speech as punctuation ought to be in writing.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

seadew said:


> Funny, I'm not on the same wavelength about the two distinct meanings attributed to" He told me there will" and "he told me there would be". For me they are exactly the same in meaning, one being more grammatical than the other but no less common and easily understood. If we were in the conditional we could make a distinction between the 'real' nature of will/would as follows: "If there is a meeting (looks like it will happen), I'll wear my new pink dress." As opposed to "If Jack were to ask me out (an impossible dream for a mere Cinderella like me), I would wear my new pink dress." Here the real/unreal nature of the situation is expressed in the choice of the auxiliary.


You say that the version without the shift of tense (will to would) is less grammatical than the other, Seadew. Could you give us some substantiation of your view? Do the grammar books you use say the shift should take place?

Here's an example of a guide on the subject. Two points here seem to be relevant:

a. The _often _in 2) If the sentence starts in the past, there is *often* backshift of tenses in Reported speech. suggesting to me that the shift is in no sense obligatory.

b. The note at the end: In some cases the backshift of tenses is not necessary, e.g. when statements are still true. This would seem to account for the difference in sense between the two versions, which some of us feel.


----------



## cuchuflete

When we begin without context, we have to go off in many potentially contradictory directions to support our respective views.

I agree with Thomas T that both forms are correct, and that they often have distinct meanings.  

El escocés, in post #7 gave an example in which the meanings are distinct, and that the 
_will_ form is not a valid substitute for the _would _form.


> She told me this morning that she will be here around six. I still find this correct, and if we change it to "would", it takes on a different sense: "She told me she would be here by six, and now it's almost eight. I do hope nothing has happened". In that situation, you clearly couldn't say "She told me she will be here by..."



Now, inventing some context.

_Richard:  _I just saw the boss five minutes ago. *He told me that there will be a meeting tomorrow.

*_Richard picks up the telephone, listens, puts it down and turns back to Eloise

Richard:_ *He told me that there would be a meeting tomorrow, but now he's gone
and changed his mind again.  The meeting is off. It may be rescheduled for next week.
*


----------



## johndot

Unfortunately, Thomas Tompion, the link you gave in post #18 doesn’t give the tenses (perfect/future) that we’re discussing here. I looked elsewhere and found that LBCC E-ESL (for example) did, but made no provision for the tense shift not to be applied.
 
In other words, _He told me, “There will be a meeting...”_ must become: _He told me (that) there would be a meeting..._


----------



## gasman

If he were to say, "there is to be a meeting tomorrow", would that relieve any anxiety about form?


----------



## panjandrum

We have discussed this topic before, but my brain is so worn out after reading this far that I can't summon the energy to look for it just now.

What we concluded, as I recall, is that it all depends on the timing and context.

Yesterday, Bill said "There will be a meeting on Wednesday."​ 
When referring to what Bill said, we might begin:
Bill said ...​ Bill said that ...
or
Bill told me (that) ...​ 
There is a difference.​ “Bill said ...” is likely to be followed by a direct representation of what Bill said.​ “Bill said that ...” is more flexible, it is more likely to convey the meaning of what Bill said rather than report it.​ “Bill told me (that) ...” is even more flexible.​ 

Let's look at the first two sentence structures we have been asked to consider.
(1) _Bill told me there will be a meeting on Wednesday._​ It is not yet Wednesday and as far as we know the meeting is still going to happen.
This message would be entirely appropriate as a report at the time.​ In practice, I would probably say:
_Bill told me there is going to be a meeting on Wednesday._

(2) _Bill told me there would be a meeting on Wednesday._
It is now after Wednesday.
OR
It is still before Wednesday and the meeting has been cancelled.

I think the point at issue is that (1) deviates from the tabulated and taught transformation from direct to indirect speech.  I think the difficulty is that these transformations are OK when the events are in the past, but not when some are in the past, some are in the future.

Found the link 
* ...is on TV...was on TV OR would be on TV*​


----------



## El escoces

Panj, you make so much sense when you're tired 

I also agree with everything that TT and cuchu have written in preceding posts.



> Unfortunately, Thomas Tompion, the link you gave in post #18 doesn’t give the tenses (perfect/future) that we’re discussing here. I looked elsewhere and found that LBCC E-ESL (for example) did, but made no provision for the tense shift not to be applied.
> 
> In other words, _He told me, “There will be a meeting...”_ must become: _He told me (that) there would be a meeting..._


 
On this occasion, I'm afraid I just can't agree with you, johndot.



> Funny, I'm not on the same wavelength about the two distinct meanings attributed to" He told me there will" and "he told me there would be". For me they are exactly the same in meaning, one being more grammatical than the other but no less common and easily understood. If we were in the conditional we could make a distinction between the 'real' nature of will/would as follows: "If there is a meeting (looks like it will happen), I'll wear my new pink dress." As opposed to "If Jack were to ask me out (an impossible dream for a mere Cinderella like me), I would wear my new pink dress." Here the real/unreal nature of the situation is expressed in the choice of the auxiliary.


 
I don't agree with this either, seadew, because I think you're trying to compare apples and oranges.  "If there is" - a meeting - "I will wear..." can only properly be compared, in the context of this discussion, with "If Jack asks me out..." - in which case I remain of the view that you are entitled (well, I'm going to say required) to follow it with "I _will_ wear my new pink dress".

In any event these are not examples of the type of future/past tense clashes with which the thread is concerned, but are simply straightfoward future conditionals, no?


----------



## johndot

If he were to say, "there is to be a meeting tomorrow", would that relieve any anxiety about form? (gasman, post #21)
 
If everyone agrees that _He told me, “There is to be a meeting tomorrow”_ is correctly transposed by _He told me there was to be a meeting tomorrow”, _then, yes, thatshould relieve anxieties about form—in sentences of that precise construction.__


----------



## timpeac

I agree with a lot of what's said above - but only in descriptive terms (and what's described is how I would speak myself so I don't knock it!). What we're talking about here is the difference between direct and indirect speech. According to traditional rules

""There will be a meeting tomorrow", he said." becomes "he said that there would be a meeting the next day". Now, in reality a lot of people ignore that in English (both in terms of tense and distinguishing "tomorrow" from "the next day") and so for those people (of which I would be one) the _direct_ semantic difference between "there will be a meeting tomorrow" and "there would be a meeting tomorrow (if xyz hadn't happened)" counts in indirect speech too (although in traditional terms it would be impossible to distinguish them because "will" becomes "would" and "would" remains "would"). For foreign learners I would recommend that they respect the traditional tense sequence, particularly in exams.


----------



## ofriendragon

hi, panj, I'd rather you "could be tired" on many occasions. The tenses in such cases seem to have gone all right with me now.

------------
And thanks again go to all of you for your excellent advice.


----------



## timpeac

gasman said:


> If he were to say, "there is to be a meeting tomorrow", would that relieve any anxiety about form?


No, it's the same question - ""There is to be a meeting tomorrow", he said" > "he said that there was to be a meeting the next day".


----------



## johndot

Er... El escoces, could you be less vague, please?! Which bit(s) of my post #20 can’t you agree with?
 
I heartily endorse your last two paragraphs (post #23). In order to resolve a problem such as this, it really is necessary, I think, to stick faithfully to the original example sentence.
 
I am clear in my own mind about how the sentence in question should be constructed, both in conversation and on the printed page; my researches indicate, however, that the subject is rather more grey than black and white—witness the un-agreement of at least two English Grammar websites.__


----------



## El escoces

> Er... El escoces, could you be less vague, please?! Which bit(s) of my post #20 can’t you agree with?


 
Certainly 

This bit.



> In other words, _He told me, “There will be a meeting...”_ must become: _He told me (that) there would be a meeting..._


----------



## johndot

Ah... well that’s a direct transcription from the LBCC site mentioned in the previous paragraph (with which I agree).
 
Timpeac, too (see post #25)__


----------



## El escoces

OK, I'll be even more specific. I disagree with "must become" - which is not to disagree with the source, because it was almost certainly dealing with one example in a particular tense sequence. 

But it's come down to this: we appear to have become accustomed to using in practice something that, applying strict rules, is grammatically incorrect. Perhaps it's because its use is so widespread that I can't be persuaded that "The boss called while you were out and said there will be a meeting later today" is wrong, because it feels so right. If that makes sense.


----------



## Cagey

El escoces said:


> But it's come down to this: we appear to have become accustomed to using in practice something that, applying strict rules, is grammatically incorrect.



El escoces, I think your arguments in favor of the use of "will" are right.

The use of future in reported speech in the past tense is not necessarily incorrect. 

I agree with Panjandrum's summary of the issue, in which he which says that when the original statement referred to the future the conventions concerning tense shift are dependent on the context.  

The website to which Thomas Tompion provided a link in post 18 supports this view.  He cites the note at the bottom of that page:_In some cases the backshift of tenses is not necessary, e.g. when statements are still true_. (My emphasis.)​Other sites agree, among them BBC Learning English_ If we are reporting a fact                or something that is still true, the direct speech form can often                be retained._  (My emphasis.)​It may be sensible to omit these exceptions when introducing the back shift of tenses to English learners.  However, English grammar does permit (but does not require) the preservation of the future in certain contexts, which is reasonable.   People who maintain the future when it makes sense to do so do not thereby violate any rule of English grammar.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

johndot said:


> Unfortunately, Thomas Tompion, the link you gave in post #18 doesn’t give the tenses (perfect/future) that we’re discussing here. I looked elsewhere and found that LBCC E-ESL (for example) did, but made no provision for the tense shift not to be applied.
> 
> In other words, _He told me, “There will be a meeting...”_ must become: _He told me (that) there would be a meeting..._


Hello John,

Please look under section 2 of that link, where the reporting verb (say, tell) is in the past (said, told).  Now look down left-hand side of the table to the tense in direct speech; at the bottom you will see will; to the right of will, in the next column, you will see the tense for the backshift, would.

Then bear in mind their helpful, and accurate, note:  In some cases the backshift of tenses is not necessary, e.g. when statements are still true. 

I hope you will now agree that the site covers the case, and that in its view the following are both correct, and can mean different things; in particular the second suggests that the meeting is still planned for tomorrow.

He told me there would be a meeting tomorrow.
He told me there will be a meeting tomorrow.


----------



## seadew

This discussion has been interesting. It suggests to me that what used to be considered an ungrammatical, though usual spoken formation is now so frequent that it has split from the orginal meaning into two separate ones. With some interference from the conditional use of would (that I tried rather unsuccessfully to summon up earlier). As a result the conventional form "He told me there would be a meeting." now signifies to many listeners that what he told me no longer holds. So if Mary says, "Hey, there's a meeting today! My reply "Yes I know, Tom told me yesterday that there would be a meeting" might suggest to some that the meeting had been called off.
It's wonderful to watch a living thing like language grow and change. Cheers to all


----------



## Thomas Tompion

seadew said:


> This discussion has been interesting. It suggests to me that what used to be considered an ungrammatical, though usual spoken formation is now so frequent that it has split from the orginal meaning into two separate ones. With some interference from the conditional use of would (that I tried rather unsuccessfully to summon up earlier). As a result the conventional form "He told me there would be a meeting." now signifies to many listeners that what he told me no longer holds. So if Mary says, "Hey, there's a meeting today! My reply "Yes I know, Tom told me yesterday that there would be a meeting" might suggest to some that the meeting had been called off.
> It's wonderful to watch a living thing like language grow and change. Cheers to all


 
Interesting, Seadew. Thank you.

I'm not sure we can tie down the meaning of He told me there would be a meeting to suggest that it exclusively means for some people that the meeting is off.

Consider two circumstances:

1. The organisation is in turmoil. Employee A goes into the boss's office to find out what the boss is going to do. He comes out and, in response to the obvious question, says: 'he told me there would be a meeting tomorrow'. This is the boss's reaction to the crisis. The meeting is on.

2. Everyone thinks there is a meeting with the boss tomorrow. Employee A goes into the office and comes out to say that the boss is going to Geneva for three days, leaving this evening. Employee B says: 'But he told me there would be a meeting tomorrow'. Here the meeting is clearly off.

I'm just producing two circumstances in which the same words can be applied correctly, in response to the meeting's both being on and off.

I may have misunderstood you, but I thought you were suggesting that the expression was unambiguous on the point.


----------



## ofriendragon

> So if Mary says, "Hey, there's a meeting today! My reply "Yes I know, Tom told me yesterday that there would be a meeting" might suggest to some that the meeting had been called off.


 
It's interesting.
*Tom told me yesterday that there would be a meeting*
The meeting is called off
*Tom told me yesterday that there is going to be a meeting*
The meeting is still planned for.
----------------------------------
*Tom told me on Monday that there would be a meeting the next day.*
normal tense sequence , normal reported speech.
*Tom told me on Monday that there would be a meeting next day.*
Opps, what day is it today? And what's the fate of the meeting?


----------



## seadew

Hello Thomas. In fact, I only suggesting a split, which, if it pans out, would create confusion in some circumstances between what used to be a grammatical convention and this new narrower form. Obviously, cirsumstances should clarify the meaning but ambiguities could also arise.


----------



## El escoces

> As a result the conventional form "He told me there would be a meeting." now signifies to many listeners that what he told me no longer holds. So if Mary says, "Hey, there's a meeting today! My reply "Yes I know, Tom told me yesterday that there would be a meeting" might suggest to some that the meeting had been called off.


 
Good morning all.

My problem with your exchange with Mary, seadew, is that in this case I _don't_ think there _is_ an alternative.  Contrary to everything that has come before, I don't think it would be possible to say, "Yes, I know, Tom told me yesterday that there will be a meeting", whether or not the meeting is still "on".

And it seems to me the difference is that in this latest phrase, one is simply reporting what one was told, or what someone else said, in the past, without any reference to a future point.  Consider, in contrast, "Yes, I know, Tom told me yesterday that he will speak to us about it _next_ _week_".  It seems to me that that is the difference?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

El escoces said:


> Good morning all.
> 
> My problem with your exchange with Mary, seadew, is that in this case I _don't_ think there _is_ an alternative. Contrary to everything that has come before, I don't think it would be possible to say, "Yes, I know, Tom told me yesterday that there will be a meeting", whether or not the meeting is still "on".
> 
> [...]


I think you are quite out on a limb about this, El Escoces. Here are three examples from what I would regard as reasonably reputable sources of the form you say you don't think is 'possible': 

Arenas has *said that he will* seek a maximum-level long-term contract, one that could cover up to six years and be worth more than $120 million. 

The 5-foot-11 Lawson has not signed with an agent and has the option of returning to the Tar Heels for his junior season but *said he will likely play* in the NBA if he is drafted in the first round. Source for both: the same article from The Washington Post

Cuba's ailing leader Fidel Castro *has announced he will not accept* another term as president, ending the communist revolutionary's 49 years in power. Source BBC website

As you probably know, many more examples from what I would regard as good sources could easily be produced. What does something have to do to be accepted as a possible usage?


----------



## seadew

Yes, that's just it Thomas. I think the fact that people set the foul line at different points suggests that this is an evolving usage. It feels right here, a tight fit there and totally inadmissible elsewhere depending on the speaker/listener. So, depending on whether grammar should describe the language as it is, or make rules about what it should be like in the abstract. As an ESL teacher I stuck to the rule book, but as a native speaker I feel far freer to play around with it.


----------



## cuchuflete

I am not trying to complicate this topic more, but I've been wondering if temporal proximity has anything to do with the choice of _will_ rather than _would_ in reporting speech. That proximity may be to either the time the statement was made, the future event that was spoken of, or both.

1.  Somebody is reporting a statement made, say, a year ago:
Original statement:  _There will be a meeting next week._
Reported:  _He said [that] there would be a meeting the following week.

_I really have trouble imagining that particular example using _will.
_
2. Someone is reporting a statement made within the past hour:
Original statement:  _There will be a meeting next week._
Reported:  _He said [that] there would/will be a meeting next week.

_I believe that in the second example, native speakers are more apt to use will,
though either _will_ or _would_ would be be acceptable and clear, depending on other context.


----------



## seadew

Ah-yuh! friend from Maine. I agree entirely. (Portland girl, myself now living in France). 
Cheers


----------



## cuchuflete

Thanks, fellow Maniac, I mean Mainer!

With that encouragement, I'll toss out more possible influences on the choice of
will in place of would.

1) Emphasis.   If the original speaker gave _will_ some serious oomph (grammarians must have a polysyllabic term for this), it is likely to be preserved in reported speech.  

Example:
Original statement-  I don't care what petty conflicts you may have. There will be a meeting tomorrow, come hell or high water!
Reported: He said that there will be a meeting tomorrow, come hell or high water!

Could this have been reported using would?  Yes, but I suspect that it is less likely, as that would, no pun intended, water down the emphatic declaration. 

When the dust settles on this speculation, we can move on to negative statements.
I think negation also encourages the use of _will_ at times.


----------



## seadew

If the exchange is oral, as it probably is meant to be given the register, I think all you'd have to do is stress would to get the same point across. I would buy either one. Cheers


----------



## El escoces

> "What did the boss say?" "He told me that there will be a meeting tomorrow to discuss our grievances."
> 
> (The Prime Minister): "As I announced yesterday, there will be a full review of public spending in the autumn."


 
Morning TT

This thread has me going round in circles! The above quote is mine, from about three weeks ago (!) in post #5, giving examples of when I thought "will" could be used. I withdraw any subsequent suggestion that "Tom told me yesterday that there will be a meeting tomorrow" is absolutely incorrect - although in that particular example I still think I would say "told me...that there would be".

BUT there is a big but: two of the three examples you have quoted all start "has said" or "has announced" and therefore, again, this involves a different timeframe from the one we were originally discussing.

With an apology to all for prolonging the debate even further  I don't accept that you will find on today's BBC website an item that starts "Fidel Castro announced last year that he will not seek another term as president..." OK, bad example, because the moment has now passed, but we can see how the time context is crucial. Likewise the Washington Post would not write "Arenas has said that he would seek..."

What I was trying to convey, as regards the Tom/Mary situation, was that, in the timeframe I was inferring from what you wrote, it seemed incorrect: like saying "Tom told me yesterday that he will think about what I said". That statement is correct if you focus on what Tom is going to do in the future (i.e. after the moment Mary, or whoever, speaks these words); but if you wish to focus on Tom's intentions at the moment he spoke them, you would say "Tom said he would..."

As I said above, I think I'm starting to go round in circles. Maybe I'm not alone  At the end of the day my position is perfectly summed up by cuchu in post #43.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Panj in post 22 section 2 seemed to me to suggest that one wouldn't use will for an event which was scheduled for a moment which had already passed, and I certainly would agree with that view.

He told us Monday two weeks ago that he would come the following day.

That couldn't be will, in my view.

But if the event is scheduled for the future, and particularly perhaps, as Cuchu suggests, the reasonably immediate future, and nothing has supervened to cancel it as far as one knows, then I wouldn't be alone, I think, in saying will.


----------



## El escoces

> Panj in post 22 section 2 seemed to me to suggest that one wouldn't use will for an event which was scheduled for a moment which had already passed, and I certainly would agree with that view.
> 
> He told us Monday two weeks ago that he would come the following day.
> 
> That couldn't be will, in my view.


 
I agree.



> But if the event is scheduled for the future, and particularly perhaps, as Cuchu suggests, the reasonably immediate future, and nothing has supervened to cancel it as far as one knows, then I wouldn't be alone, I think, in saying will.


 
And I would join you.  My examples in the quote in #47 refer.


----------



## johndot

I beg your pardon, Thomas Tompion. I’ve had another look at the site and found exactly what you said I would find; I take note.
 
So: it is proper to use _would_ (which I have always propounded), and it can be proper to use _will_ (which I’ve always propounded—but for different reasons).
 
All that remains is my continued perplexity at one site’s allowance of the backshift not being necessary, and another’s ignorance of it!


----------



## Thomas Tompion

ofriendragon said:


> *Tom told me yesterday that there would be a meeting tomorrow.
> *The meeting is called off


 
Please note, OFD, that this sentence doesn't mean that the meeting is necessarily called off, just that in some circumstances it's what one would say if it had been called off.


----------



## cuchuflete

Ofriendragon's discussion of "I thought she is/was coming" has been split off to
a thread of its own:

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1000159

We seem to have enough to keep us busy here with would and will.


----------

