# Bring --> take in reported speech



## Hotmale

Hello,
does "bring" change into "take" in reported speech?
Is the transformation below correct?

"Bring me the remote control, please" said she.
She asked him to take the remote control.

Thank you


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Hotmale,

The question is not clear.

Bring, both in reported speech, in other writing, and in speech, is often confused with take.

Bring is supposed to refer to motion towards the speaker, while take describes the carrying of something away from the speaker.

The first sentence is correct.  The second sentence may be correct or wrong, depending on the context.
If "Bring me the remote control, please" is intended to mean that she asked someone to move the remote control device from wherever it is to her location, it is correct.  If it means that she wants someone to move
the remote control device from her position to another place, it is wrong.


There is nothing about reported speech that should change the uses of bring and take.


----------



## Hotmale

Hi,
I am asking because I read in one of my books that "come" changes into "go" and "bring" into "take" in reported speech.
However, when I do the transformations I have doubts whether the sentences are OK.


----------



## dn88

But why not to say:

She asked him to bring her the remote control.

? The above sentence is a correct transformation in my opinion.


----------



## cuchuflete

Let's try this again.

She=A
He=B
The remote control device =C

Locations before the statement are
A...................B+C

Statement:  A asked B to bring her the remote control, C.

This means that A wanted B to move C in the direction of A, with this result:

Initial state:  A..............B+C
Actions:  A......<B+C......
Final positions:  A+B+C................


Description:  A asked B to bring the C to her.
Reported speech:   "B, bring me the C, please" A said." 

What happened if B cooperated?  B took the C to A.


----------



## Hotmale

Ok, thanks a lot


----------



## Loob

I'm intrigued by this!

I agree with cuchu that 





> There is nothing about reported speech that should change the uses of bring and take.


 
And yet, and yet....

Looking at the transformation of 





> "Bring me the remote control, please" said she.


it does seem to me that 





> She asked him to take her the remote control.


is a valid alternative to _She asked him to bring her the remote control_.

Put another way, the perfectly natural-sounding sentence _She asked him to take her the remote control_ has to be a transformation of _"Bring me the remote control"._  It certainly can't be a transformation of "_Take me the remote control"_!

Hotmale, can you give us a bit more information about what your book says regarding _come/go_ & _bring/take_?

Loob


----------



## panjandrum

Loob said:


> [...]
> Put another way, the perfectly natural-sounding sentence _She asked him to take her the remote control_ has to be a transformation of _"Bring me the remote control"._  It certainly can't be a transformation of "_Take me the remote control"_![...]


I agree that the blue sentence _sounds_ completely natural. But, following the normal transformation rules, it could only exist as a transformation of "_Take me the remote control"._  As that is not a reasonable sentence, it follows that however good the blue sentence sounds, it could not occur naturally in English.
Ken: "Bring me the ball!"
Ken asked me to bring him the ball.
Ken asked me to bring the ball to him.

I don't see any need to interchange bring and take in moving from direct to reported speech.


----------



## Loob

Hang on our panj!

We agree that _She asked him to take her the remote control_ is a natural-sounding sentence.

I argue that, therefore, _She asked him to take her the remote control _must be a transformation of "Bring me the remote control".

You argue that because "Take me the remote control" is not a valid construction, _She asked him to take her the remote control_ is not a valid construction.

I revert to the point that _She asked him to take her the remote control _is natural-sounding and therefore valid

Help Hotmale: we need you to tell us exactly what your book advises!

Loob


----------



## panjandrum

I'm being very careful with words here.
As far as I can tell, there is nothing at all grammatically wrong with the blue sentence.
That does not mean that it could naturally occur as a legitimate sentence in English.
A grammatically-perfect sentence can be a logical nonsense.
However, besought to do so by a blonde with pigtails, I will hang.


----------



## okey-dokey

Hotmale said:


> Hello,
> does "bring" change into "take" in reported speech?
> Is the transformation below correct?
> 
> "Bring me the remote control, please" said she.
> She asked him to take the remote control.
> 
> Thank you



The switching of _bring _to _take _between direct and reported speech is a fairly good rule to follow, but not in the sample sentence you have provided. There is no context for your sentence but it is likely the participants would be in close proximity and therefore bring would be inappropriate. The speaker would say:

Give me the remote, please.
Pass me the remote, please.
Could you give / pass me the remote?

Imagine this context:
A is inviting B over to the house for the afternoon and is thinking of the pool.

A: _Come _over this afternoon, and don't forget to _bring _your swimming stuff.

In reporting this, C says: "She asked him to _go _over that afternoon and reminded him to _take _his swimming stuff."


----------



## Loob

okey-dokey said:


> The switching of _bring _to _take _between direct and reported speech is a fairly good rule to follow


 
Okey-dokey, can you point to any descriptions of the rule?  I had no luck in finding anything concrete via google....

Loob


----------



## Hotmale

Loob said:


> Hotmale, can you give us a bit more information about what your book says regarding _come/go_ & _bring/take_?
> 
> Loob



Hi Loob 

Unfortunataly there isn't much to quote. Anyway, this is from "A Proficiency Course in English" by F.V.Bywater.

"The commonest other changes are as follows:

this -> that
ago -> before
now -> then
here -> there
*come -> go*
*bring -> take *"

 Sadly there aren't any examples involving the use of either "come" or "bring", that's why I posted my questions here. 
This information implies that *come/bring *authomatically changes into *go/take* in reported speech no matter what location and direction.


----------



## Loob

Thanks, Hotmale, for coming back on this.

The change _come>go, bring>take_ - unlike, for example, _this>that_ - is certainly not automatic, as you can tell from previous posts in this thread. And I don't think it would occur to me to make it if I were doing a textbook exercise on transforming direct speech into reported speech. But I do wonder whether I would tend to make the change in real life...

I'll keep thinking about this one

Loob


----------



## Hotmale

Loob, sorry for not coming back on this earlier  and thank you very much for your interest in this matter.
Usually I take things for granted if I learn them from books written by native speakers, but I found this transformation a bit strange, especially because no example was given and no further explanation.

Have a good Sunday 
Hotmale


----------



## okey-dokey

A significant consideration in reported speech is that the focus shifts to the reporter. This shift affects any words or expressions in whose meaning there is a deictic element. There is a strong element of deixis in 'bring' which means 'carry to here / carry to me'. The shift of reported speech neutralises this deixis as evidenced by the reporter using a deictically neutral verb - 'take'.

Of course, not every speaker on every occasion will switch from 'bring' to a neutral verb. This could be due to tiredness, for example, but also the speaker may feel that enough other changes have been made in the speech to indicate indirectness that it is not necessary to go further.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

okey-dokey said:


> The shift of reported speech neutralises this deixis as evidenced by the reporter using a deictically neutral verb - 'take'.


 
Hello Okey-dokey,

I was interested in this post.  You describe take as being deictically neutral.  Do you mean in the circumstances posited in posts in this thread so far, or in general, always?  I was surprised.


----------



## Loob

I found it surprising and interesting, too.  That said, I've certainly read that "go" is more deictically neutral than "come", so perhaps the "take"/"bring" pair is similar.

Loob


----------



## panjandrum

okey-dokey said:


> A significant consideration in reported speech is that the focus shifts to the reporter. This shift affects any words or expressions in whose meaning there is a deictic element. There is a strong element of deixis in 'bring' which means 'carry to here / carry to me'. The shift of reported speech neutralises this deixis as evidenced by the reporter using a deictically neutral verb - 'take'.
> 
> Of course, not every speaker on every occasion will switch from 'bring' to a neutral verb. This could be due to tiredness, for example, but also the speaker may feel that enough other changes have been made in the speech to indicate indirectness that it is not necessary to go further.


You are suggesting that shifting bring to take is almost at the same level as tense shifting - that the speaker who does not make this shift is compromising something.  

Bill, Mavis, Jennie and I are going to the theatre.
Before we leave the hotel -
Mavis to Bill: "Make sure you bring the tickets, Bill."
At the theatre it turns out that Bill doesn't have the tickets.
Bill blames Mavis.
I say to Mavis: "I know it's not your fault. I heard you telling Bill to make sure he brought the tickets."

It seems to me that the choice of whether to change bring to take is not related to tiredness or to "change fatigue", but depends on the context.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

panjandrum said:


> I agree that the blue sentence _sounds_ completely natural. But, following the normal transformation rules, it could only exist as a transformation of "_Take me the remote control"._ As that is not a reasonable sentence, it follows that however good the blue sentence sounds, it could not occur naturally in English.
> Ken: "Bring me the ball!"
> Ken asked me to bring him the ball.
> Ken asked me to bring the ball to him.
> 
> I don't see any need to interchange bring and take in moving from direct to reported speech.





panjandrum said:


> It seems to me that the choice of whether to change bring to take is not related to tiredness or to "change fatigue", but depends on the context.


 
Panj, I'm puzzled. I take the point you make in the second post (above), and agree with it entirely. But the first post has me troubled:

*Ken asked me to bring him the bal*l is a more natural way of saying it than *Ken asked me to bring the ball to him*, as you seem to agree. Perhaps the answer is in your statement that there is no *need* to interchange bring and take; does that mean you accept that it's what we often do?

I don't jump to the conclusion that this is the case because you say: 



panjandrum said:


> As far as I can tell, there is nothing at all grammatically wrong with the blue sentence.
> That does not mean that it could naturally occur as a legitimate sentence in English.


 
and I'm not clear how you object to the blue sentence, which you have no objections to grammatically, which (or its equivalent) I hear all the time on the lips of careful speakers, yet which you suggest, if I've understood you, could not naturally occur as a legitimate sentence in English.

If it looks like a parrot, smells like a parrot, and squawks like a parrot, why isn't it a parrot?

I've obviously missed something.


----------



## cuchuflete

I was not familiar with diexis or diectic, so I looked them up:



> _noun_1. a word specifying identity or spatial or temporal location from the perspective of a speaker or hearer in the context in which the communication occurs; "words that introduce particulars of the speaker's and hearer's shared cognitive field into the message"- R.Rommetveit
> WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.



Given that definition, why is take any more neutral than bring?  True neutrality by the reporter would 
call for 'move'. Bring is tied to the person making the request, while take is associated only with the person doing the carrying of the object.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

cuchuflete said:


> I was not familiar with diexis or diectic, so I looked them up:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that definition, why is take any more neutral than bring? True neutrality by the reporter would
> call for 'move'. Bring is tied to the person making the request, while take is associated only with the person doing the carrying of the object.


 
Cuchu, I think *Bring your umbrella* must suggest that you have your umbrella when you come *to me*, while* take your umbrella* can mean *have it with you when you go from my sister's to my uncle's* - i.e. *no reference of movement to or from me (the speaker).* That's not to say that *take* can't have diectic force, however, as you suggest.


----------



## panjandrum

Thomas Tompion said:


> Panj, I'm puzzled. I take the point you make in the second post (above), and agree with it entirely. But the first post has me troubled:
> 
> *Ken asked me to bring him the bal*l is a more natural way of saying it than *Ken asked me to bring the ball to him*, as you seem to agree. Perhaps the answer is in your statement that there is no *need* to interchange bring and take; does that mean you accept that it's what we often do?


Er, I don't think so.  I think that was a simple, rather puzzled, generalisation in response to the suggestion that bring should become take.


> [...] I'm not clear how you object to the blue sentence, which you have no objections to grammatically, which (or its equivalent) I hear all the time on the lips of careful speakers, yet which you suggest, if I've understood you, could not naturally occur as a legitimate sentence in English. [...]


But Thomas - you're asking me about something I wrote on _Friday 
_I'll remind myself what the blue sentence was, and the context in which it arose.  But first of all, I'll  remind myself of the view that what happens to *bring *in the direct->reported speech transformation is a matter of context and location.

_She asked him to take her the remote control._ 
From the perspective of a bring/take transformation sceptic, the direct speech version of this sentence is, "Take me the remote control."  As that is not a naturally-occurring sentence, I suggest that the blue sentence is also not a naturally-occurring sentence.
Of course, those who do not share my scepticism would have no difficulty with it.

I think this is coming down to a simple question.  Which of 1 & 2 do you accept as a transformation of "Bring me the remote control"?
1. She asked him to bring her the remote control.
2. She asked him to take her the remote control.

I favour (1) and have difficulty with (2).


----------



## AWordLover

Hi All,

I find this thread quite interesting. I don't think that I would normally transform bring to take going from direct to reported speech. I propose that we add this rule to the thread that lists non-existant rules.

I trolled around online until I found some help for ESL students that had examples with bring.

In the examples the verb is not changed from bring to take. 

He said we ought to bring back a better rule,
AWordLover


----------



## ireney

The way I see it there is a difference between "take" and "bring" although it may be slight in some cases. "I have to take this parcel to him" is different than "I have to bring this parcel to him". To me "take" means give the parcel and then go (oh you might stay sure but it is the moving of the parcel that is of the utmost importance). Now call me crazy but in "bring me the parcel" the fact that it is you who acts seems of more importance than if we use "take".

So if someone tells me to bring him something and in indirect speech I switch bring to take I am probably complaining  Or use it to tell to a third person something like "Bill just asked me to take this parcel to him but I'll be home for dinner" to denote I'm going to give it and then leave.

Mind you (those who don't already know it that is) I am not a native speaker of English.


----------



## panjandrum

Jennie said, "Bring me the parcel."

Bill stops me on the way and asks me to go to a cheese-tasting.
Sorry, Bill, I can't -
- I have to take this parcel to Jennie. --- most likely, but not by much.
- I have to bring this parcel to Jennie. --- OK.
(See ireney's comments on the difference)

OR
Sorry, Bill, I can't -
- Jennie asked me to take this parcel to her. --- unlikely for me, but I understand others would say this.
My natural response would be either of:
- Jennie asked me to bring this parcel to her.
- Jennie asked me to bring her this parcel.


----------



## Loob

I think I've got the glimmerings of a "hypothesis" on this; I'm going to take it very slowly so I don't frighten myself...

First, the "deictic vs neutral" point. (Thanks, Thomas Tompion for your post 22!). *Come* and *bring* are always deictic since they indicate movement towards the speaker. _*Go* _and_ *take*_ may be used deictically, to indicate movement away from the speaker; but are also used neutrally, without reference to the immediate context.

Second, the issue of whether we ever transform direct speech *come* and *bring *to (neutral) reported speech _*go* _and_ *take*. _I'm sure we do, in real life, even though the only text-book exercises I've seen retain the original verb. What's my evidence for this? Well, I won't reopen the blue sentence debate with panj, especially since okey-dokey subsequently pointed out that the original example would have been better with _give_ or _pass. _But here are some other - surely? - natural-sounding reported speech examples where *go* or *take *must be a transformation of _*come *_or_* bring*_:

_He asked her to go and see his new wallpaper < H__e said,_ "_Come and see my new wallpaper"_
_She told him to take her some flowers and a large box of chocolates < She said, "Bring me some flowers and a large box of chocolates"._
Third, the question: do we always transform direct speech *come* and *bring *to reported speech _*go* _and_ *take*_? Absolutely not: and there are cases where it would be completely wrong to do so. In panj's story about his trip to the theatre with Bill, Mavis and Jennie:


> Before we leave the hotel -
> Mavis to Bill: "Make sure you bring the tickets, Bill."
> At the theatre it turns out that Bill doesn't have the tickets.
> Bill blames Mavis.
> I say to Mavis: "I know it's not your fault. I heard you telling Bill to make sure he brought the tickets."


the verb *bring* is inescapably right in the reported speech. A deictic verb is appropriate because panj is standing in the place where the tickets should have been delivered: neutral *take* is not an option, still less deictic* take.*

Fourth, the question of when we retain the original *come* and _*bring. *_This is where I get to my "hypothesis": that we retain these verbs in reported speech when we're identifying in some way with the original speaker - we're putting ourselves in the speaker's position. If it's a strong identification because we're literally standing next to that person (panj's theatre example), then we must retain the original verb; if it's a weaker identification (panj's Jennie example in post 26, where he's not with Jennie but thinking about her) then retention of the verb is optional. 

Grateful for any comments on this (please be gentle!). Whether I'm right or wrong, there remains the question of the advice we should give Hotmale. I would say: 

in text-book exercises converting direct speech to reported speech, stick to the same verb: it will always be correct, even if not always necessarily the most natural option
in text-book exercises converting reported speech to direct speech (especially if they're written by Mr Bywater) remember that you may occasionally need to convert _*go* _and_ *take *_to *come* and *bring*
in real life, don't worry about it!
Thank you so much, Hotmale, for posting such a fascinating question. 

Loob


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hotmale said:


> "Bring me the remote control, please" said she.
> She asked him to take the remote control.


 


Loob said:


> In text-book exercises converting direct speech to reported speech, stick to the same verb: it will always be correct, even if not always necessarily the most natural option
> 
> in text-book exercises converting reported speech to direct speech (especially if they're written by Mr Bywater) remember that you may occasionally need to convert _*go* _and_ *take *_to *come* and *bring*
> in real life, don't worry about it!


 
Loob,

I enjoyed your post, thank you.

You must explain to me why you think you may occasionally need to convert in one direction - from reported to direct speech - but *never need to *(it will always be correct not to) in the opposite direction.

You see I like your fourth point and think it suggests we will occasionally be obliged to shift, going in either direction.

I've put Hotmale's opening question at the top, because I'm of the school which says - despite all I've heard to the contrary - that the sentence he gives as an example converts most naturally and idiomatically to: 

*She asked him to take her the remote control.*


----------



## Loob

Thomas Tompion said:


> You must explain to me why you think you may occasionally need to convert in one direction - from reported to direct speech - but *never need to *(it will always be correct not to) in the opposite direction.
> 
> You see I like your fourth point and think it suggests we will occasionally be obliged to shift, going in either direction


 
Hi Thomas

It's just that I could readily think of reported speech examples with _*go*_ or *take* which would require *come *or* bring *in direct speech: I gave a couple in my previous post.

But I couldn't think of any examples where it would be obligatory to transform direct speech *come *or* bring *into reported speech *go* or *take. *Can you?

Loob


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Loob said:


> But I couldn't think of any examples where it would be obligatory to transform direct speech *come *or* bring *into reported speech *go* or *take. *Can you?
> 
> Loob


 
"Come up and see me sometime".

She told me to go up and see her sometime.


I'd say 'you told me to *come* here' when I got there and she asked me what the hell I was playing at.  I'd always use *go* in reported speech, unless I was at her place.


----------



## panjandrum

Thomas Tompion said:


> "Come up and see me sometime".
> 
> She told me to go up and see her sometime.[...]


Well done ThomasT.
There we have the crux of the discussion.
Never in a million years would I report her invitation in that form.

There may be a rule somewhere (though one has not yet been found) suggesting that come should become go (and bring, take), but such rules are ignoring the reality of normal intelligent conversation.
So far, the only external evidence adduced (post #24) gives examples that do not swap bring/take.

Persuasion is pointless.


----------



## Loob

panjandrum said:


> Never in a million years would I report her invitation in that form.


Actually, Thomas, I'm with panj on your specific example: I'm sure I'd say "she invited me to come up and see her some time".  As I said before, I really can't think of any examples where it's obligatory to change _*come *_to_* go *_and_* bring *_to_* take*_...



> There may be a rule somewhere (though one has not yet been found) suggesting that come should become go (and bring, take), but such rules are ignoring the reality of normal intelligent conversation.


I'm pretty sure there's no such "rule", panj.



> Persuasion is pointless.


 
So I guess you didn't think much of my hypothesis and my proposed advice to Hotmale

Ah well...

Loob


----------



## panjandrum

Loob said:


> [...]
> So I guess you didn't think much of my hypothesis and my proposed advice to Hotmale


How could you possibly say that!
Your hypothesis includes "deictic" in the second sentence.  That makes my brain hurt.

But after the deictic bit, the rest seems to me to make sense, if you will allow for some personal interpretation and discretion.  

When I look at the brains that have commented on this thread I am struck by a somewhat iconoclastic thought that resonates with Loob's recommendations to Hotmale.  
There are differing views on this topic.  
If you know what your examiner thinks is right, follow that.

Otherwise, if you generally speak/write competently and confidently, you will be assumed to be correct in this respect, no matter whether or not you transform bring/take.


----------



## Loob

I'm sorry about the headache-inducing power of "deictic" (though cuchu defined this in an earlier post).

I have much sympathy with panj's comment that "there are differing views on this topic.  If you know what your examiner thinks is right, follow that."

I also suspect that my earlier advice to Hotmale is still valid:

in text-book exercises converting direct speech to reported speech, stick to the same verb: it will always be correct, even if not always necessarily the most natural option
in text-book exercises converting reported speech to direct speech (especially if they're written by Mr Bywater) remember that you may occasionally need to convert _*go* _and_ *take *_to *come* and *bring*
in real life, don't worry about it!
Good luck, Hotmale, and thanks for raising a very interesting question!

Loob


----------



## cuchuflete

Thomas Tompion said:


> Cuchu, I think *Bring your umbrella* must suggest that you have your umbrella when you come *to me*, while* take your umbrella* can mean *have it with you when you go from my sister's to my uncle's* - i.e. *no reference of movement to or from me (the speaker).* That's not to say that *take* can't have diectic force, however, as you suggest.



This is the thread topic:



> Is the transformation below correct?
> 
> "Bring me the remote control, please" said she.
> She asked him to take the remote control.



Somebody suggested that take was neutral in comparison to bring.   I stated that take seems as much related to the person asked to move the remote control as bring is related to the person doing the asking.  What have umbrellas to do with a request to move a remote control device?


----------



## Forero

Hotmale said:


> Hello,
> does "bring" change into "take" in reported speech?
> Is the transformation below correct?
> 
> "Bring me the remote control, please" said she.
> She asked him to take the remote control.
> 
> Thank you



Hi, Hotmale & others.

My simple answers are _no_ and _no_.  _Bring_ does not as a rule become _take_ in reported speech.  And the transformation, as you give it, is not correct.

This is a little off track, but the first sentence is wrong to begin with, though it might work in the context of poetry, because the pronoun _she_ should normally precede _said_.  Were it a noun, it could follow _said_ with impunity.

The transformation cannot be correct without a reflex of _me_ in the second sentence.  There should be a _her_ someplace.

Now to the really interesting part: whether to keep _bring_ or to change it to _take_.  This is what you are really asking about.

The normal and usual transform would give "She asked him to please bring her the remote control."  We might want to leave out _please_ as not part of the sentence to be transformed: "She asked him to bring her the remote control."  I'll do this to keep things simple.

I still have to say, it depends on context.  I will assume, again for simplicity, that this is not a matter of interpreting a particular textbook but a question of how the English language really operates.  Still the context really does make a difference.

Here is an example of context:

"Bring me the remote control", she said, and he took it to her post haste.
_This is "bring" from her point of view but "took" from mine.  There is a difference both in point of view and in time._

She asked him to bring her the remote control, and he took it to her post haste.
_I report her speech indirectly with minimal changes, but shift to my viewpoint to tell the rest._

She asked him to take her the remote control, which he did post haste.
_In this case, I have to get "take" into the first part to be able to use "which he did" in the second.  In this case, "take" is natural._

I think there are in fact lots of sentences in which we need to change _bring_ to _take_, but not for the simple reason of reported versus direct speech.

I'll give another example of normal usage before I hit 'Submit Reply':

If your old boyfriend comes to your party tonight down at the train station, do you want me to come too?
_Here, neither I nor you are at the train station, yet I use come because you are to be there.  I won't come unless you want me to._


----------



## Thomas Tompion

"Come up and see me sometime".

She told me to go up and see her sometime.[...]



panjandrum said:


> There we have the crux of the discussion.
> Never in a million years would I report her invitation in that form.


 
Panj.,

Try the problem in reverse.

You must admit there are people who say: *she told me to go and see her.  *I imagine it's said in girls' schools forty times a day.

What did the Mistress say?  *Go and see me?* or *Come and see me?*


----------



## Forero

Something is different about the context, maybe temporal aspect:

She told me to *come* up and see her sometime. [A standing invitation]
She told me to *go* and see her after lunch. [A one-time demand/invitation in the past - either I already went or I decided not to go]

Not the only context that could allow/force _come_ -> _go_, but possible, eh?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

cuchuflete said:


> Given that definition, why is take any more neutral than bring? True neutrality by the reporter would
> call for 'move'. Bring is tied to the person making the request, while take is associated only with the person doing the carrying of the object.


 


cuchuflete said:


> Somebody suggested that take was neutral in comparison to bring. I stated that take seems as much related to the person asked to move the remote control as bring is related to the person doing the asking. What have umbrellas to do with a request to move a remote control device?


 
Cuchu, 

I answered the question in brown, taking as an example an umbrella - probably because remote controls aren't carried about much. I gave you the normal academic justification for the idea that *take* is more diectically neutral than *bring*, to a speaker. You now take exception to my example, as though it makes any difference if what is being brought is a remote, an umbrella, or a boa constrictor.

Notice how you've changed your view between your two posts cited above.

In the first:
*Take* is associated only with the person doing the carrying of the object while *bring* is tied to the person making the request. 

In the second:
*Take* seems as much related to the person asked to move the remote control as *bring* is related to the person doing the asking. 

In the first, *bring* is only associated with the requester, and *take* only with the carrier. I find this a truly strange view, because it suggests that from the carrier's point of view the instruction to *bring *something will be unclear.

In the second, the relationship of *take* to the carrier is the same as the relationship of *bring* to the requester.

Clearly the second view is a subset of the first, but not the same thing. To suggest they are the same would be to make the same mistake as to say that because all Irish setters are dogs, all dogs are Irish setters.


----------



## HuangRong

Hi, 

I have a question about this reported speech. 

"Must I bring my painting to school tomorrow?" Ada asked her teacher.

Should the answer be:
1) Ada asked her teacher if she had to *bring *her painting to school the next day.

or 

2) Ada asked her teacher if she had to *take *her painting to school the next day.

I am rather confused when we have to use bring or take. 

Regards.


----------



## Forero

Hi, HuangRong, and welcome to the forum.

I think 1 would be more natural, but you have a choice.

For example, if Ada and I have not been to that school in years, Ada is sitting here next to me, and her painting hangs here on the wall, I might choose to use 2.  But Ada may remember the conversation vividly and say "I asked my teacher if I had to bring my painting to school the next day."

Notice that "must bring" suggests bringing in the future.  I think that idea of futurity helps to keep the infinitive "to bring" stable, even now that that "future" is in the past.


----------



## zaffy

panjandrum said:


> Bill, Mavis, Jennie and I are going to the theatre.
> Before we leave the hotel -
> Mavis to Bill: "Make sure you bring the tickets, Bill."



And why is "bring" used here? The tickets are supposed to be taken somewhere else, not towards the speakers.


----------



## Steven David

zaffy said:


> And why is "bring" used here? The tickets are supposed to be taken somewhere else, not towards the speakers.




Why should "bring" not be used here?

> Bill, Mavis, Jennie and I are going to the theatre.
Before we leave the hotel -
Mavis to Bill: "Make sure you bring the tickets, Bill." <

There is no rule that says we use "bring" when an object goes towards the speaker. We can use "bring" when object goes somewhere else, not towards "the speaker".

> "Make sure you bring the tickets, Bill." <

The sentence is correct. There's nothing unusual about it.

This means that Bill puts the tickets in his wallet and carries the tickets with him. Or he finds some other place to put the tickets so that he can carry them with him. Bill is bringing the tickets with him to the theater.

"Bill, did you remember to bring the tickets?"

"Yes, I did."

"That's good. Now we don't have to go back to the hotel to get them."

____________________

Maybe, this usage note is relevant.

bring to

... ... ... When the point of reference is not the place of speaking itself, either verb is possible, but the correct choice still depends on the desired perspective. For example, _The labor leaders brought their requests to the mayor's office_ suggests a point of view centered around the mayor's office, while _The labor leaders took their requests to the mayor's office_ suggests a point of view centered around the labor leaders. Be aware that the choice of _bring_ or _take_ determines the point of view emphasized. For example, a parent sitting at home may say of a child, _She always takes a pile of books home with her from school,_ describing the situation from the child's viewpoint leaving school. If the viewpoint shifts to the speaker, _bring_ becomes appropriate, as in _Look, I see her coming right now, and she's bringing a whole armful of books!_


----------



## zaffy

Steven David said:


> > Bill, Mavis, Jennie and I are going to the theatre.
> Before we leave the hotel -
> Mavis to Bill: "Make sure you bring the tickets, Bill." <
> 
> The sentence is correct. There's nothing unusual about it.



And what if I used 'take' there? Unacceptable? Unnatural? Incorrect?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

zaffy said:


> And what if I used 'take' there?


Where?


----------



## Steven David

zaffy said:


> And what if I used 'take' there? Unacceptable? Unnatural? Incorrect?




"Make sure you take the tickets, Bill."

I do not find anything wrong with this sentence. So, yes, this is correct and normal.

"Bill is taking the tickets with him." <

No problem.


----------



## zaffy

So say again two people are leaving for the cinema. Do both of them fit?

A: Are you ready? We need to be leaving now.
B: I am. Don't forget to take/bring the tickets like you did last week!


----------



## Steven David

zaffy said:


> So say again two people are leaving for the cinema. Do both of them fit?
> 
> A: Are you ready? We need to be leaving now.
> B: I am. Don't forget to take/bring the tickets like last week!



This comes to mind first.

"Don't forget the tickets like you did last week."

To answer your question, yes, either "bring" or "take" would work in that sentence.


----------

