# I would say that I had  [tenses reported speech]



## Fabiola79

Hi,

Please tell me if it's correct:

_I would say that I had loved you -_ talking about the past.


----------



## Fabiola79

Id like to say just _I would say that I had loved you _- standing alone anbd talking about the past.

Should we say it without the sequence tenses: _I would say that I loved you.
_One of users wrote it's correct to say _'I would say that I loved you' _concerning the present time. Was he right ?


----------



## KHS

Your question doesn't have enough context for me.  I need to know the situation and what idea you are trying to communicate with that phrase.


----------



## Fabiola79

The context is:
_I would say that I'm in love with you_.
Should we say it rather_ I would say that I was in love with you _- talking about present times 
or _I would say I had been in love with you _- talking about the past ?


----------



## KHS

In your message, the idea that you are trying to communicate is not clear to me.  Don't just repeat your words, explain more about the idea that you want to communicate.


----------



## Fabiola79

I want to communicate:
_I would say that I felt / had felt love to you.

_The main clause tells us that_ I would say.
_The subordinate clause tells us that _I felt love to you _( present )
or that _I had felt love to you _( past ).


----------



## Cagey

Any of the constructions are possible. 

What we want to understand is the situation in which you would say this.  When did the 'loving you' go on?  When did it stop?  What is the general meaning of 'I would say'?  Are you talking about habitual action in the past?  Or are you talking about something that might have happened but didn't?  Are you commenting on the fact of your loving in the past? 

That is the sort of thing we mean by 'context'.


----------



## Fabiola79

The sentences with the sequence of tenses are hypothetical.
Am I right ?

After 'would' in main clause we use the sequence of tenses in subordinate clause ?

Am I right ?


----------



## KHS

If you change the tenses, you change the meaning of the sentence.  Thus, to tell you what is correct, we need to know which of the different possible meanings you are trying to express.

There is not a correct answer and an incorrect answer.  There are different possible meanings expressed by different sequences of tenses.


----------



## Fabiola79

1. _I would say that I loved you.
_2. _I would say that I had loved you.
_
I'm giving the context:

The main clause in both above sentences means _I would say _/ _I'd like to say now.

_The subordinate clause in sentence 1 is an action happening now, at the time of speaking; at the same time as I would say.

The subordinate clause in sentence 2 is a finished action happening in the past,
before the time of speaking, before I would say.

Have I shown the context clearly to you ?

Are the 2 sentences from the beginning of this post correct ?


----------



## Chasint

Fabiola79 said:


> ...
> 
> Have I shown the context clearly to you ?
> 
> ...


No, unfortunately you haven't shown the context at all.

The following dialogue is an example of one way to provide context. I have used an imaginary conversation:

_John: Do you love me?
Mary: I don't want to say.
John: Why not?
Mary: *I would say that I loved you* but then you might decide you don't love me. Then I would look foolish.
_
In the above conversation the phrase is correct. I don't know if that is the sense you are asking about. You must provide your own context.


----------



## velisarius

Your sentences are possible. You have told us that they are in the present or in the past, but you have not given any context, so it's impossible to state whether they are "correct".

Edit: Cross-posted. Biffo has been kind enough to explain to you what 'context' means.


----------



## Fabiola79

The context is:

Sentence 1
_John: Do you love me?
Mary: I don't want to say.
John: Why not?
Mary: *I would say that I loved you, but I don't love you.*_

Sentence 2
_John: Do you love me?
Mary: I don't want to say.
John: Why not?
Mary: *I would say that I had loved you long ago, but now I don't love you.*_


----------



## KHS

Those are possible grammatical sentences, but the situations seem a bit strange.


----------



## se16teddy

Fabiola79 said:


> _John: Do you love me?
> Mary: I don't want to say.
> John: Why not?
> Mary: *I would say that I loved you, but I don't love you.*_


 This sounds highly improbable to me. I say I don't love you, but under certain circumstances, which seem to be no different from the circumstances we are in now, I would say that I do love you.


----------



## Fabiola79

So we may say: _I would say that I do love you _?
What about the sequence of tenses ?


----------



## se16teddy

Fabiola79 said:


> So we may say: _I would say that I do love you _?


The Oxford English Dictionary lists 51 different senses of the word_ will _(past tense etc would), many of which have various sub-senses, and, yes, you can say this in several of those senses or sub-senses. 


Fabiola79 said:


> What about the sequence of tenses ?


In some of those senses, sequence of tenses may be relevant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_of_tenses


----------



## Fabiola79

So we don't use the sequence of tenses when main clause is with *would* or* should*.
Am I right ?


----------



## se16teddy

Fabiola79 said:


> So we don't use the sequence of tenses when main clause is with *would* or* should*. Am I right ?


 No. There are dozens of senses of _would_ and _should_ so it is impossible to generalize.


----------



## Fabiola79

But in the sentences in this thread we should *not* use the sequence of tenses.
Am I right ?


----------



## Chasint

Fabiola79 said:


> But in the sentences in this thread we should *not* use the sequence of tenses.
> Am I right ?


Returning to your original two questions: It is grammatically possible but very unlikely that someone would say _I would say that I had loved you._ It would require the invention of a very ingenious set of circumstances to make it work.

My answer is:

 I would say that I loved you.   (possible and could be said in a variety of circumstances)

 I would say that I had loved you.  (Theoretically possible but very unlikely to be said in real life).

I hope that answers your questions.


----------



## wandle

I would repeat the rule I mentioned in an earlier thread:
the sequence of tenses is necessary in an indirect statement; it is incorrect in a direct statement.


----------



## Fabiola79

May we say simply _I would say that I love you _?


----------



## Chasint

Fabiola79 said:


> May we say simply _I would say that I love you _?


Yes, it's possible. Without context it is ambiguous.


----------



## Fabiola79

I'm giving the context:

_John: What would you say about me, my dear ?
Patricia: I would say that I love you, honey.
_
May we say simply_ I would say that I love you _in this context ?


----------



## JulianStuart

Fabiola79 said:


> I'm giving the context:
> 
> _John: What would you say about me, my dear ?
> Patricia: I would say that I love you, honey.
> _
> May we say simply_ I would say that I love you _in this context ?



That is a good example of context - in this case the answer is perfect.  We now know that the use of "would" is appropriate because it was in response to a question containing "would".


----------



## KHS

Fabiola79 said:


> But in the sentences in this thread we should *not* use the sequence of tenses.
> Am I right ?



Please list exactly which sentences you think cannot use _would _in the main clause.


----------



## se16teddy

Fabiola79 said:


> I'm giving the context:
> 
> _John: What would you say about me, my dear ?
> Patricia: I would say that I love you, honey.
> _
> May we say simply_ I would say that I love you _in this context ?


 Yes, "love" is fine here, and tends to imply that I love you. "Loved" here might imply that I would say I loved you, but if I did so I would be lying.


----------



## wandle

Here again, I will still say that the sequence of tenses is required in an indirect statement.
There are two correct options:
(a) direct statement: _' I would say, "I love you, Honey" ';_ 
(b) indirect statement: _'I would say that I loved you, Honey'._


----------



## Fabiola79

I don't know who to trust.
Is the sequence of tenses required here ?
May we say simply _I would say that I love you _?


----------



## KHS

Fabiola79 said:


> I don't know who to trust.
> Is the sequence of tenses required here ?
> May we say simply _I would say that I love you _?



Yes, you can say that.  

That is why we keep asking you for context.  A lot of grammar depends on the exact situation.  Book rules are only very general, and never account for every single possible use.


----------



## se16teddy

Fabiola, I think that you are asking about the distinction that Wikipedia makes in this article between "attracted sequence of tenses" and "natural sequence of tenses". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_of_tenses


----------



## shorty1

A: I dumped Jane.
B: It's like Yesterday when you begged her not to leave you.
Did you really love Jane? What would you say?
A: I would say I *loved* her/I would say I *had loved *her, but, you know, Love is bound to change.

In this case, which tense is appropriate, loved or had loved? or else Both are possible?


----------



## EStjarn

shorty1 said:


> In this case, which tense is appropriate, loved or had loved? or else Both are possible?



The appropriate tense here is the simple past, 'loved'. You could also say 'did love' with the same meaning.

In order to use the past perfect, 'had loved', we would need _two_ _past_ _time points_. For example, we could say, "I had loved her for many years before we got married." Here both acts refer to the past. We have no idea whether he loves her today or whether they are still married. But in your context there is one present reference - he doesn't love her today - and one past - he loved her in the past - and because of that we cannot use the past perfect.


----------



## Kirill V.

Finally, she got you, guys!
Congratulations, Fabiola!


----------



## shorty1

EStjarn said:


> The appropriate tense here is the simple past, 'loved'. You could also say 'did love' with the same meaning.
> 
> In order to use the past perfect, 'had loved', we would need _two_ _past_ _time points_. For example, we could say, "I had loved her for many years before we got married." Here both acts refer to the past. We have no idea whether he loves her today or whether they are still married. But in your context there is one present reference - he doesn't love her today - and one past - he loved her in the past - and because of that we cannot use the past perfect.




Thank you so much. 

Let me change the sentences a bit.

A: I dumped Jane.
B: It was like *several days ago *when you begged her not to leave you.
Did you really love Jane?
A: The answer would have been different depending upon when you asked. 
answer1) If you had asked me several days ago, I would have said that I loved her.
answer2) If you had asked me yesterday, I would have said that I had loved her. 


So, Answer1) and Answer2) must be OK.


If my understanding is wrong, enlighten me, please.


----------



## boozer

Your answer 2) tells me that you loved her before yesterday and yesterday you did not love her anymore. Answer 1) tells me that yesterday you still loved her.


----------



## shorty1

boozer said:


> Your answer 2) tells me that you loved her before yesterday and yesterday you did not love her anymore. Answer 1) tells me that yesterday you still loved her.




Thank you so much for confirming this, boozer.  

I agree with "Your answer 2) tells me that you loved her before yesterday and yesterday you did not love her anymore."

However, I'm afraid that I don't agree with "Answer 1) tells me that yesterday you still loved her."

It is because in answer 1), the condition of the time when you asked me is several days ago.

Yesterday is still in the future at that point(=several days ago). 


I hope you understand my poor Englsih.


----------



## EStjarn

shorty1 said:


> If my understanding is wrong, enlighten me, please.



I think your understanding is correct. These are the direct speech versions of the two hypothetical conversations:

1) Several days ago:

B: Did you really love Jane?
A: I love Jane.

2) Yesterday:

B: Did you really love Jane?
A: I have loved Jane.

The choices of tense in the reported speech answers you give are in line with what is supposedly called an attracted sequence of tenses (see Wiki article, link in post #32). There is another rule too, a freer one called a natural sequence of tenses, which permits the following:

1a) If you had asked me several days ago, I would have said that I _love_ her.

2a) If you had asked me yesterday, I would have said that I _have loved_ her.

As an addition, this is lifted from the Wiki article mentioned above:


> Debate amongst grammarians over the appropriateness of the two types of sequence of tenses goes back as far as the 18th century.


----------



## shorty1

EStjarn said:


> I think your understanding is correct. These are the direct speech versions of the two hypothetical conversations:
> 
> 1) Several days ago:
> 
> B: Did you really love Jane?
> A: I love Jane.
> 
> 2) Yesterday:
> 
> B: Did you really love Jane?
> A: I have loved Jane.
> 
> The choices of tense in the reported speech answers you give are in line with what is supposedly called an attracted sequence of tenses (see Wiki article, link in post #32). There is another rule too, a freer one called a natural sequence of tenses, which permits the following:
> 
> 1a) If you had asked me several days ago, I would have said that I _love_ her.
> 
> 2a) If you had asked me yesterday, I would have said that I _have loved_ her.
> 
> As an addition, this is lifted from the Wiki article mentioned above:




Thank you so much. 

I need some amount of time to absorb this.


----------



## wandle

According to that Wikipedia article:


> ... it is also possible to use the natural sequence even if the main verb is past or conditional:
> Batman said that he needs a special key for the Batmobile.


In my view, this is simply erroneous and the terminology does not make sense.
(If the tense in the subordinate clause is not shifted back to follow the past tense of the main verb, then no sequence of tenses is present: the second verb is simply not following the tense of the main verb.)

It ought to be: _Batman said that he needed a special key for the Batmobile_.


----------



## Chasint

wandle said:


> According to that Wikipedia article:
> 
> In my view, this is simply erroneous and the terminology does not make sense.
> (If the tense in the subordinate clause is not shifted back to follow the past tense of the main verb, then no sequence of tenses is present: the second verb is simply not following the tense of the main verb.)
> 
> It ought to be: _Batman said that he needed a special key for the Batmobile_.


I understand your point but I'm not totally convinced. I'm always more persuaded by context than by rules.

*Example*
Batman is in the garage working on the Batmobile. Robin has just been asked to give a message to Alfred (Batman's butler).

Alfred: _Can I help you?_
Robin:_ I have a message from Batman. He's in the Batcave._
Alfred: _What did he say?_
Robin: _He said that he needs the special key._
Alfred: _I'll get it for him._

I cannot see a problem with Robin's second remark. _Batman said (a few seconds ago) that he needs (right now) the special key. _


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I can't see a problem with Robin's second remark either, Biffo.

I know you don't like rules but I think there is at least a convention that tense shifts of this kind are NOT necessary where we are concerned either with universal truths - *he said the Earth is round*, or with ideas which have great present import - *he said he needs the special key*. 

There's nothing grammatically wrong with_ *he said he needed the special key*_, but it lacks the feel of urgent immediacy given by the present tense in the clause.


----------



## Chasint

Thomas Tompion said:


> ...There's nothing grammatically wrong with_ *he said he needed the special key*_, but it lacks the feel of urgent immediacy given by the present tense in the clause.


I'd go further. If someone said to me _ "*he said he needed the special key.*_ I would be expecting the rider "but he no longer does".


----------



## wandle

Biffo said:


> I'm always more persuaded by context than by rules.


That does not seem to me to be a valid antithesis. There should not be any conflict between a sound context and a sound rule.


> *Example*
> Batman is in the garage working on the Batmobile. Robin has just been asked to give a message to Alfred (Batman's butler).
> 
> Alfred: _Can I help you?_
> Robin:_ I have a message from Batman. He's in the Batcave._
> Alfred: _What did he say?_
> Robin: _He said that he needs the special key._
> Alfred: _I'll get it for him._
> 
> I cannot see a problem with Robin's second remark. _Batman said (a few seconds ago) that he needs (right now) the special key. _


That, with respect, seems to me to be a manufactured context.
If Robin says he has a message, then the message is a present matter.
Alfred is more likely to say 'What is it?' or 'What does he want?'
Then Robin's likely reply is 'He says he needs the special key' or just 'He needs the special key'.

There is, as a rule, more than one way to create a correct present context in the main clause, enabling the subordinate clause to have a correct present tense.


----------



## Chasint

wandle said:


> That does not seem to me to be a valid antithesis. There should not be any conflict between a sound context and a sound rule.
> 
> That, with respect, seems to me to be a manufactured context.
> If Robin says he has a message, then the message is a present matter.
> Alfred is more likely to say 'What is it?' or 'What does he want?'
> Then Robin's likely reply is 'He says he needs the special key' or just 'He needs the special key'.
> 
> There is, as a rule, more than one way to create a correct present context in the main clause, enabling the subordinate clause to have a correct present tense.


Yes it's a manufactured context. It would have taken me forever, searching the web, to find the precise real-life conversation needed to illustrate my point. 

I don't think your suggestions of what is 'more likely' provide a sufficient counter-argument. You need to show that I'm wrong, not merely that there are alternative ways to carry out the conversation. There are always alternative ways to say things in English, e.g. _Hello, I'm John_ versus _Hello, they call me John._​  In my personal experience the first greeting is much more likely but that doesn't make the second one ungrammatical or incorrect.


----------



## wandle

I have given what seems to me the more natural spoken exchange in that situation and shown that it conforms to the rule explained earlier. The past tense (_'What did he say?' 'He said'_) seems out of place in the given context.

On the other hand, suppose a studio hand who had watched the scene being filmed was asked afterwards what the characters said or did. Then it would be natural to say, _'Robin said Batman needed the special key'_.


----------



## kalamazoo

The examples in post #13 make very little sense to me.  Not only the highlighted sentences, but the whole dialogue doesn't make sense. Why is this in the context of "I don't want to say."  Why in sentence 1 is this an answer to a question "why not?"  I feel there is something you are trying to express, but I really can't tell what it is. What is Mary's reason for not wanting to say?  Can you tell us her reason without using the word "would"?  Is it somehow that she doesn't love John, but she feels if he asks her, then she is compelled to say she loves him, even though she doesn't love him?


----------



## lucas-sp

What context is not "manufactured"? The idea of there being some heirarchy of value - or even a distinction - between "natural" and "manufactured" contexts is absurd.

The sentence "Batman said he needs the key" is perfectly fine and natural in English (as is "Batman says he needs the key," even when Batman did the "saying" in the past - shouldn't that be just as "incorrect"?). Time-shifting the subordinate clause in that sentence does indeed make it sound like Batman _no longer needs the key_, as Biffo said.

As for the original question - time-shifting isn't really on the table here, because both sentences involve what John "would say" in the present. The question is: (A) how would he express that he loves Mary now, and (B) how would he express that he loved Mary in the past, but no longer?

A) I would say [that] I love you...
A) I would say [that] I loved you, except [some compelling reason not to say it]...

B) I would say [that] I once loved you...
B) I would say [that] I did love you...


----------



## wandle

lucas-sp said:


> What context is not "manufactured"? The idea of there being some heirarchy of value - or even a distinction - between "natural" and "manufactured" contexts is absurd.


'Manufactured' in this case means 'devised to put a present tense in a past context'. 
Natural dialogue is a vital element of good writing, in novels as well as in scripts for film or theatre.


> The sentence "Batman said he needs the key" is perfectly fine and natural in English


That is where I disagree, as there are several ways to preserve a present context.


> (as is "Batman says he needs the key," even when Batman did the "saying" in the past - shouldn't that be just as "incorrect"?).


 No: that is a well-established usage.


> Time-shifting the subordinate clause in that sentence does indeed make it sound like Batman _no longer needs the key_, as Biffo said.


Not necessarily: see example in post 47. It may or may not do so, depending on context.


----------



## lucas-sp

wandle said:


> That is a well-established usage.


Um, as is the one that you're calling "wrong"? The Wikipedia article does cite multiple (print) sources for what you claim is a completely non-established imaginary made-up wholly surprising usage.

Apparently contexts are only "natural" if wandle recognizes them. That, quite frankly, is neither a scientific nor a cosmopolitan viewpoint. And it doesn't help people learn and communicate in English, or any language.


----------



## Fabiola79

Is it possible to say also:
_Batman said that he needs the special key ?
_If it is in which situations is it possible ?

Thank you for your answer


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Fabiola79 said:


> Is it possible to say also:
> _Batman said that he needs the special key ?
> _If it is in which situations is it possible ?
> 
> Thank you for your answer


I think some of us have already answered this question, Fabiola.

The answer is that it certainly is possible, and you'd say it where Batman had said "I need the special key", and, when you report what he said, you wish to communicate that his need remains pressing and immediate.


----------



## EStjarn

Fabiola79 said:


> Is it possible to say also:
> _Batman said that he needs the special key ?_



I thought that was the construction discussed above, starting with post #42. It seems there are two camps: one that says it is correct and another that says it is not. 

Edit: Cross-posted with Thomas.


----------



## boozer

It certainly is correct. The sequence of tenses must be observed and I personally believe that the meaning would be essentially the same with or without backshifting. However, the sequence of tenses is not an absolute and in this case deviating from it is permissible. In the earlier examples given in this thread, the ones with 'would say', deviating from the sequence of tenses is, in fact, mandatory as far as I am concerned - simply because backshifting in combination with 'would' obscures the intended meaning.


----------



## EStjarn

boozer said:


> In the earlier examples given in this thread, the ones with 'would say', deviating from the sequence of tenses is, in fact, mandatory as far as I am concerned - simply because backshifting in combination with 'would' obscures the intended meaning.



I agree with you in part. A sentence such as (from post 36)

"If you had asked me yesterday, I would have said that I had loved her."

although correctly backshifted, is difficult to decipher; there's one too many 'had' in it. I would have preferred "I have loved her."

However, I don't feel this one (also from post 36)

"If you had asked me several days ago, I would have said that I loved her."

is obscure; here I could accept either 'loved' or 'love'.

So I am not sure I agree that the deviation from the (attracted) sequence of tenses with 'would say' is mandatory, but perhaps it is recommendable.


----------



## boozer

Yes, sure, EStjarn - the second example is not obscure. It tells me he loved her several days ago. And also that he probably does not love her anymore. And what if the intended meaning is that he still loves her? I could never infer such a meaning (out of context) though some people insist that 'love' must by all means be backshifted to 'loved'...


----------



## EStjarn

boozer said:


> And what if the intended meaning is that he still loves her?



In that particular case, backshifting would be thoroughly confusing.


----------



## boozer

EStjarn said:


> In that particular case, backshifting would be thoroughly confusing.


 So we agree completely.


----------

