# conclude that humans <must have lived / had lived>



## JJJenifer

Hi, everyone,

Scientists were able to conclude that modern humans ..... in Africa twice as long as anywhere else.
A. have lived    B. must have lived        C. had lived   D. were living

I think that C is correct but I don't see why not B .
How do you think about it?


----------



## Myridon

C seems to suggest that no modern humans live in Africa now.
A is best in my opinion.  
I think B doesn't work well with "conclude".  They have decided that it is true, so why say it must be true?


----------



## DonnyB

I don't think (B) is a good match for the past tense in "were able".  For it to be the correct answer, the sentence would have to say:

Scientists *are* able to conclude that modern humans *must have lived* in Africa twice as long as anywhere else.


----------



## Parla

I agree with Myridon (post #2) that (A) is the correct answer, since human beings still live in Africa. The other answers suggest that human beings no longer inhabit that continent.

What does your answer key say?


----------



## JJJenifer

Thank you, Myridon, DonnyB, Parla.

According to your explanations,  I can also write as below to show that modern humans are still living?
Scientists concluded that modern humans in Africa have lived twice as long as anywhere else.


----------



## JJJenifer

Hi, DonnyB,
Is it possible to say as below?
Scientists *are* able to conclude that modern humans *must have been living* in Africa twice as long as anywhere else.

And could you please tell me why we can't use "must have ved" when the scientists were able to make the conclusion before?


----------



## JJJenifer

Hi, Parla,
I don't understand what is "answer key"..


----------



## wandle

JJJenifer said:


> Scientists were able to conclude that modern humans ..... in Africa twice as long as anywhere else.
> A. have lived    B. must have lived        C. had lived   D. were living
> I think that C is correct but I don't see why not B .


The first point is that because the main verb is 'were' the whole sentence is in a past context: we are dealing with indirect speech following a past tense. Therefore, to observe the correct sequence of tenses, the rule of backshifting has to be applied: the verb within the indirect speech needs to be in a past tense too. This rules out answer A (present perfect tense).

B, C and D are all past tenses. To make the right choice, we need to establish first what the original direct speech would have been.
What was the conclusion as the scientists expressed it to themselves or in their paper? They will have said:
_'We *are* able to conclude that modern humans *have* lived in Africa twice as long as anywhere else'_.

When we apply the rule of backshifting, that gives us: _'Scientists_ _*were* able to conclude that modern humans *had* lived_ ...' 

We can rule out D because it would not have been correct if they had said:
_'We *are* able to conclude that modern humans *are living* in Africa twice as long as anywhere else'_. 

But what about B? As far as the sequence of tenses goes, 'must have lived' is just as valid as 'had lived'.
However, the strong statement 'were able to conclude' indicates that this is more than an assumption and is a definite conclusion.

For that reason, and that reason only, answer C is preferable to answer B.


----------



## JJJenifer

Hi, wandle,
Thank you very much. I read three, four times and understood it now!
So.. if I want to say that scientists made the conclusion in the 1970s, and  in the 1970s the conclusion that the mondern humans had lived in Africa twice as long as anywhere else was true, then I choose "C", and if I want to say that scientists made the conclusion in the 1970s and now in the 2010s the conclusion that the mondern humans have lived in Africa twice as long as anywhere else is still true, then I choose "A".

Is my thinking correct?


----------



## Parla

> I don't understand what is "answer key".



In reply to your question (post #7) about my earlier comment (post #4): 

Others who have asked for help here with multiple-choice questions have said that after finishing the quiz they have been provided with an _answer key_, a list of what the author or teacher considers the correct answers to the questions.

(And I still believe that (A) is the only correct answer.)


----------



## JJJenifer

Thank you, Parla.

So, if the the conclusions or discoveries made even long ago is still tenable now, then present tense should be used.
If the they were only tenable when the conclusions or discoveries were made, then past tense should be used.

It this thought correct?


----------



## Parla

> So, if the the conclusions or discoveries made even long ago is are still tenable now, then present tense should be used.
> If the they were only tenable when the conclusions or discoveries were made, then past tense should be used.
> 
> It this thought correct?


Please look again at post #2 and post #4. It has nothing to do with when discoveries were made but with whether or not the continent of Africa is still inhabited by human beings.


----------



## wandle

JJJenifer said:


> Hi, wandle,
> Thank you very much. I read three, four times and understood it now!
> So.. if I want to say that scientists made the conclusion in the 1970s, and  in the 1970s the conclusion that the mondern humans had lived in Africa twice as long as anywhere else was true, then I choose "C", and if I want to say that scientists made the conclusion in the 1970s and now in the 2010s the conclusion that the mondern humans have lived in Africa twice as long as anywhere else is still true, then I choose "A".
> Is my thinking correct?


Sorry, but I do not agree with that thinking. The issue we are dealing with is what tense to use in indirect speech following a main verb which is in a past tense.

In my opinion, there is only one clear, consistent rule which will give a correct result every time and that is, always use the sequence of tenses: a present tense (present simple, present continuous, present perfect) follows a present tense; and a past tense (past simple, past continuous, past perfect) follows a past tense.

The logic of that is that the idea expressed in the original direct speech was the opinion of the original speaker at that time. We cannot draw any certain conclusion about the speaker's later opinion. Even if the original statement had been 'The earth goes round the sun' or 'Truth is an eternal value', the speaker might subsequently change that opinion. By saying 'He said that the earth went round the sun' we mark that statement as being his view at that time: though of course we still understand that he intended it as a permanent truth. That point does not stand in need of  endorsement by us when we report what he had said.


----------



## siares

I can't follow this

I thought the verb here is "to conclude" - why must one go back to shift the tenses?


----------



## wandle

'To conclude' is the infinitive; infinitives, like participles, take their time reference from the main verb.
Here, the main verb is 'were', past tense, and that makes 'to conclude' refer to the past as well.


----------



## siares

Oh I see, infinitive..
That makes sense. So the sequence of tenses would be the same if the sentence began "Scientists concluded".
Many thanks!


----------



## siares

wandle said:


> the strong statement 'were able to conclude' indicates that this is more than an assumption and is a definite conclusion.



I just realised I have another problem with this sentence: I never saw such a strong statement in life sciences. I only remember: it is thought, the evidence shows, it has been suggested..
I think the verb should be changed so that appropriate level of certainty is inferred.


----------



## neal41

To conclude is to form an opinion.  Scientists aren't shy.  After they have reached a conclusion, they tell us what it is.  So we can expect 'conclude' to behave much like 'say'.

Jane said, "Mary is sick".

In indirect discourse this is commonly "Jane said that Mary was sick".  If we are focusing on present time and Mary is still sick, we can say, "Jane said that Mary is sick."

Like Myridon and Parla, I prefer (A, have lived), but I think (C, had lived) is fully acceptable.  It doesn't matter whether you use 'concluded' or 'were able to conclude'.  If the conclusion that the scientists reached is no longer regarded as correct, then we would reject (A) and choose only (C).

Rules regarding tense sequencing are useful, but they are not absolutely rigid.


----------



## siares

I am now even more confused



neal41 said:


> To conclude is to form an opinion.



Does this mean that the statement would mean the same thing if it went like this:?
Scientists opined that modern humans had lived in Africa twice as long as anywhere else.

To me it sounds very different..


----------



## neal41

Maybe it would have been better if I had said that to conclude is to form an opinion based on a careful analysis of available evidence.  From a syntactic point of view, 'opine' behaves like 'conclude'.  Semantically they are not identical.


----------



## siares

That clarifies things.
I wish there wasn't the 'were able to' before the 'conclude. I feel like it introduces muddleness. But maybe not for a native speaker
thank you, neal41


----------



## siares

Would somebody please back shift the sentence reporting this very post:

On WR it was/ had been noted that the scientists ...? able to conclude that ...


----------



## DonnyB

siares said:


> Would somebody please back shift the sentence reporting this very post:


Try this:

On WR, it *was noted* that scientists *were able* to conclude that modern humans *had lived* in Africa twice as long as anywhere else.


----------



## siares

Sounds good. 
And if I add a precise date: On Saturday at XX00 hrs on WR;
would it be:  noted - had been able - had had lived?

What does one do if a sentence has more verbs than there are tenses/ participles?
thank you


----------



## DonnyB

siares said:


> Sounds good.
> And if I add a precise date: On Saturday at XX00 hrs on WR;
> would it be:  noted - had been able - had had lived?


It wouldn't make any difference there:

On Sunday 17th May at 9.10am on WR, it was noted that scientists were able to conclude that modern humans had lived in Africa twice as long as anywhere else.



> What does one do if a sentence has more verbs than there are tenses/ participles?
> thank you


You aim to match the available tenses correctly so that you keep the _time sequence_ of the events in the right order.


----------



## siares

Thanks Donny B, I think I get it.


----------



## wandle

neal41 said:


> Jane said, "Mary is sick".
> 
> In indirect discourse this is commonly "Jane said that Mary was sick". If we are focusing on present time and Mary is still sick, we can say, "Jane said that Mary is sick."
> 
> Like Myridon and Parla, I prefer (A, have lived), but I think (C, had lived) is fully acceptable. It doesn't matter whether you use 'concluded' or 'were able to conclude'. If the conclusion that the scientists reached is no longer regarded as correct, then we would reject (A) and choose only (C).


Apart from the preference for A, this agrees with the view laid down in A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language by Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, Jan Svartvik.

The relevant section is quoted at length in post 8 of this thread at UsingEnglish. That passage needs to be read carefully as a whole before drawing conclusions from it. One sentence is particularly problematic:


> Backshift is optional when the time-reference of the original utterance is valid at the time of the reported utterance.


One problem there is that the rule is not explicitly restricted to backshifting of an original present tense. The context of the passage shows that the four professors are referring to original present tense statements of two kinds as shown in their examples:
(1)_ Their teacher told them that the earth moves round the sun._
(2) _Sam told me last night that he is still an American citizen._

The second type covers *neal41's* example '_Jane said, "Mary is sick"_.' However, when the rule is taken out of context, it is liable to be understood as applying to original past tense statements as well, such as '_Jane said, "Mary was sick"_.' This opens the door to a vast range of possiblities, based on the argument that a past statement, once made, retains its validity for ever because the past meaning is defined by its original context.

Another problem is that it implicitly accepts two different and incompatible criteria for choosing tenses. Quirk and colleagues are saying that, as long as the original present tense remains valid, there are two optional ways of putting into indirect speech a statement such as '_Jane said, "Mary is sick"_.'
(a) _'Jane said that Mary was sick'_ 
(b) _'Jane said that Mary is sick'_. 

Version (a) uses the criterion that the sentence is reporting a view held by Jane at the time, without committing itself to any subsequent implication, and marks this restriction by the use of the past tense.
Version (b) uses the criterion that the sentence is reporting a continuing state of affairs and endorses this as true by the use of the present tense.

Which criterion should the learner adopt? They lead to opposite conclusions. Quirk and colleagues evidently intend criterion (a) to be generally valid, since they say that backshifting is always a correct option.
At the same time, they intend criterion (b), which conflicts directly with (a), to be valid in the limited case of two original present tense types. Apart from the fact that this produces an opposite result from criterion (a), why should it be limited to those two types? If it is valid at all, why is it not valid for all cases?

The German usage is consistent in this regard, because the indirect statement always retains the original spoken tense.
The traditional English rule, which I was taught, is also consistent, because backshifting is always applied after a past tense.

The professors Quirk and colleagues, by mixing these two approaches, have in my view opened the door to confusion on the part of learners, as can be seen repeatedly in this and other English language forums.


----------



## siares

Hi wandle,
thanks for the interesting analysis.

For interest, I was taught at school that backshifting is optional:



wandle said:


> as long as the original present tense remains valid



*only* in cases which are always and indubitably true; which are laws rather than rules. This would exclude anything outside exact sciences (or religious certainties).
Mary is sick doesn't fall under this category.
Neither do any statements in life sciences.
2 + 3 equals 5 does fit into this category. (maybe not in theoretical physics though?)



wandle said:


> they intend criterion (b), which conflicts directly with (a), to be valid in the limited case of two original present tense types.



Would you please explain, I don't understand what is a 'limited case of two original present tense types'.

many thanks


----------



## wandle

wandle said:


> the four professors are referring to original present tense statements of two kinds as shown in their examples:
> (1)_ Their teacher told them that the earth moves round the sun._
> (2) _Sam told me last night that he is still an American citizen._


Those two types are (1) universal truths and (2) statements of fact endorsed by the speaker as still true.


----------



## siares

wandle said:


> statements of fact endorsed by the speaker as still true.



I am astonished.
I would have though this was taken from April Fool's edition.


----------



## wandle

wandle said:


> statements of fact endorsed by the speaker as still true.


Sorry, there I misrepresented Quirk and colleagues. 

(1) For statements such as _'Their teacher told them that the earth moves round the sun'_ they are saying that the original uses the present tense in its timeless sense.

(2) For statements such as _'Sam told me last night that he is still an American citizen'_ they are saying that the truth of the original is still valid at the time of reporting.

Both types, but particularly type (2), seem to me vague in practice and tending towards confusion.


----------



## siares

I didn't notice any misrepresentation of Quirk in your post.

_'Sam told me last night that he is still an American citizen'_ seems totally odd to me. (April Fool caliber if found in a grammar book, ok on the streets)

I especially can't imagine tenses being used this haphazardly when scientists debate and mix well evidenced facts with theories they hold true.


----------



## wandle

It is true that the statement of fact is endorsed by the speaker as still true, but Quirk's criterion properly stated is that the time-reference of the original is valid at the time of reporting.


----------



## siares

wandle said:


> time-reference of the original



what is this, please?

(About life sciences: I forgot that there was a central dogma in life sciences - one way flow of information DNA/RNA to protein.
This could be said to be universal truth, in a way different to universal truths which are provable.)


----------



## ortonn

I reckon that option A is entirely correct as long as the speaker believes that subordinate clause expresses a situation which is relevant at the time of reporting. 
So if a speaker feels that situation is still relevant then tenses can be left unchanged.


----------



## siares

I have trouble understanding the angle of current relevance in: Humans have lived in Africa twice as long as anywhere else.
How would one express this in present tense?

Sam is an American citizen can be expressed in a present tense so to me this is a different case.


----------



## ortonn

By current relevance I meant that effect of _'human living in Africa twice as long as anywhere else_' can still be seen, felt or heard.

For example -- Jane : "I have lost my keys." ( And she can't get into her house.)
This sentence is relevant as long as Jane is still in search of her keys to get into her house.

P.S. : I'm no grammarian but my answer seems to be in concord with Myrdion's and Parla's.
Anyways, let's wait for their views.

Hope this makes sense


----------



## siares

thank you 
Does this sound OK?
People were able to conclude that I have lost my keys.

Also, would you be able to think of more general example, more similar to the original question?
I have lost my keys = effect is seen and felt = I don't have my keys. 
Keys are too predictable


----------



## ortonn

I would tend towards grammatical though unnatural.

Another similar example, I suppose  "The president learned that the earthquake _*has caused *_havoc all across the country."

I believe the usage of 'has caused' is correct if the effects of havoc are still present at the time of reporting.

Parla & Myridon, what would be your thought on this sentence ?


----------



## siares

I need to take a break, print this page and read it when rested.
Many thanks, ortonn!


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JJJenifer said:


> Hi, everyone,
> 
> Scientists were able to conclude that modern humans ..... in Africa twice as long as anywhere else.
> A. have lived    B. must have lived        C. had lived   D. were living
> 
> I think that C is correct but I don't see why not B .
> How do you think about it?


Hi Jenifer.

The examiner probably thinks one has to backshift here, and that would discount A.

I can't reconcile D with the adverbial at the end of the sentence.

Both B and C seem to me consistent with backshifting.

So it looks as though the examiner thinks B has present force, and that A is discounted by the same token, because he thinks you have to backshift.  

But you don't have to backshift, so A is fine, I think.

In consequence he gives C as the only answer, where A and B would be equally possible, in my view.

I'm not sure that I understand Donny's argument against B, but he is an inveterate backshifter, on previous form.

Not a good question.  If there are many more like this, you need a different book.


----------



## wandle

_Pace_ *Thomas Tompion*, there do not seem to me to be any valid grounds to condemn the question, or the test or the book. We do not have the full context. What is being tested by this question?

If we view it as a test of backshifting, then the question works well.
Answer A 'have lived' is ruled out because it is present perfect tense (i.e. has not been backshifted).
Answer D 'were living' is ruled out because the original direct speech would have been 'are living' which makes no sense.
Answer B 'must have been' is a valid past tense (because the past tense of 'must' is still 'must'), but it is less good on semantic grounds than answer C 'had lived' because the words 'were able to conclude' fit better with a definite conclusion rather than an assumption or deduction.
Thus the question shows the classic pattern of language multiple choice: two answers are ruled out on grammatical grounds and a choice must then be made between the two remaining answers on semantic grounds.

On the other hand, if we see it as a test of Quirk's rule, then answers A and C are equally valid: the question then has no exclusive right answer.

Therefore it is natural to see this question as one specifically designed to test backshifting. There is no reason at all why that should not be tested on its own. No language test, let alone an individual question, can test every aspect. It makes good sense to teach backshifting as the first step for indirect speech introduced by a past tense verb, and to test the students thoroughly on it, before introducing Quirk's rule.

I strongly suspect that if we had the full context (what the course syllabus is, what stage has been reached and what this test is designed for) we would see that the topic question is from a specific exercise on backshifting.


----------



## wandle

wandle said:


> the time-reference of the original





siares said:


> what is this, please?


The time-reference of a verb, clause or sentence is the point of time or period of time to which it refers.
Quirk is saying that if the original statement refers to a period of time which is still continuing, or is equally valid, when the statement is reported, then backshifting is optional.

My advice is always to use backshifting (in a past context), because then you cannot be wrong and you have one consistent rule for all past indirect statements, instead of two which are inconsistent and indeed conflicting.


----------



## Cagey

This thread is closed while moderators discuss it. 

Thank you for your patience. 

Cagey, moderator.


----------

