# I would ask him where he lived/lives if I met him"?



## Timlo

Hi,
Should i use "lived or "lives"? The "him" here is a person i will never meet.
thanks


----------



## Dimcl

Timlo said:


> Hi,
> Should *I* use "lived or "lives"? The "him" here is a person *I* will never meet.
> *T*hanks


 
If you were to meet him, are you interested in where he lives at that point in time or are you interested in where he used to live prior to that?


----------



## Timlo

It is in a subjunctive mood
For example "If *I* met Doraemon, *I* would ask him where he lived/lives"


----------



## Timlo

When it is in subjunctive mood,do I have to change the tense into past tense after "would"?


----------



## Alxmrphi

I would ask him where he lived (5 years ago) 
I would ask him where he lives (right now) 



> When it is in subjunctive mood,do I have to change the tense into past tense after "would"?


No you don't What you have to think about is when you are referring to (where did he live / where does he live)

*I would ask* ... here is not subjunctive by the way.. it's just conditional.


----------



## boozer

Timlo said:


> It is in a subjunctive mood


No, I don't think so, it's just the 2nd conditional  which refers to hypothetical/impossible situation in the present.


----------



## Doggie doggie

> No, I don't think so, it's just the 2nd conditional  which refers to hypothetical/impossible situation in the present.


Sorry to disagree with you. In my grammar book, the orignial sentence is a subjunctive that refers to "contrary to fact". *If I met him* implies I never meet him.

Doggie


----------



## Timlo

That means meeting somebody i will never be able to meet


----------



## Alxmrphi

Doggie doggie said:


> Sorry to disagree with you. In my grammar book, the orignial sentence is a subjunctive that refers to "contrary to fact". *If I met him* implies I didn't meet him.
> 
> Doggie



Sorry, "_*if I had met him*_" (3rd conditional) is what you are talking about, "_*if I met him (1st) /If I would meet him (2nd)*_" definitely implies that you can still meet him, it still can happen.

If you said "*If I were to meet him*" THAT would be a subjunctive, but "would" is definitely a conditional... the subjunctive comes as a consequence of a conditional is it is seen as hypothetical.


----------



## Doggie doggie

Ok, Alxmrphi, agree now.
To Timlo, Alxmrphi is right.
 let's suppose a conversation between A and B,they are talking a girl whom A met yesterday.
A: I met a cuttie yesterady, I regret I didn't get her number.
B: If I had met her, I would have gotten her number.

Make sense now?


----------



## Alxmrphi

Doggie doggie said:


> let's suppose a conversation between A and B,they are talking a girl whom A met yesterday.
> 
> A: I met a cu*t*ie yesterday, I regret I didn't get her number.
> B: If I had met her, I would have gotten her number.
> 
> Make sense now?



Great!


----------



## Doggie doggie

Alxmrphi, I am still confused about Timlo's question. Let's go back to his question, he wants to know in subjunctive, lived or lives , which one should be used?
For example, *If I had met her yesterday, I would have asked her where she lives/ lived.*
In this situation, *lives *make sense to me.
Thanks.

Doggie


----------



## Alxmrphi

Both sound absolutely fine to me.
If I said that sentence, I don't know which one I would pick, it's just an unconscious decision that I would make when speaking.

With conditional sentences there are standard syntaxes, but all grammars I have read explain that you can freely mix and match between the tenses, depending on what nuances you want to express. (But here, I don't see a difference really, besides one focuses on a closed portion of time, and the other means where she will be living at exactly this moment, but for this context, they do mean exactly the same thing, both assume she's still living in the same place)


----------



## kalamazoo

I think it should be "lived" simply for agreement of tenses.

What would I have said to her yesterday? I would have said "Where do you live." 
If I had met her, I would have asked her where she lived.

Suppose instead, I would have said to her "Please tell me where you lived before you came here."
If I had met her, I would have asked her where she had lived before she came here.


----------



## Alxmrphi

kalamazoo said:


> I think it should be "lived" simply for agreement of tenses.
> 
> WHat would I have said to her yesterday? I would have said "WHere do you live."
> If I had met her, I would have asked her where she lived.
> 
> Suppose instead, I would have said to her "Please tell me where you lived before you came here."
> If I had met her, I would have asked here where she had lived before she came here.



What I tried to express was the context, your last example changes the context and therefore what is correct/incorrect, I don't think it's a fair example to use as a "_Consider this..._" because it means specifically she isn't living at the same place now, and the past would have to be used.

Context is very important, and these types of thing are best looked at within the context of a sentence, with the probability she hasn't moved since yesterday, it does mean that it would be ok to use the present. (this works for long-lasting verbs only)

I do think it looks better to match the tenses up, and if I was preparing students to take an exam, where tense concordance is quite important, I'd definitely suggest using the past, but as for what I would personally say, or personally expect to hear, or if trying to let learners of English be aware of what they can say "to sound like one of us" - I think with the assumption nothing has changed since the first time period, it's fine to use the present.

I forgot to find out what school she goes to!
If I'd met her, I'd have asked her what school *she goes to* / what school *she went to*.

Here, it's the same thing, a long-action verb, I actually prefer the present tense when speaking for something like this, but the past is 100% fine as well.


----------



## Doggie doggie

> With conditional sentences there are standard syntaxes, but all grammars I have read explain that you can freely mix and match between the tenses, depending on what nuances you want to express.


Alxmrphi, that is why sometimes I feel frustrated. As a English learner, I can't distinguish the nuances as easy as a native speaker.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Doggie doggie said:


> Alxmrphi, that is why sometimes I feel frustrated. As a English learner, I can't distinguish the nuances as easy as a native speaker.



It's the same for me in Italian, it drives me insane! But it's something we all have to do unfortunately! 
But keep it up and you'll understand it soon!


----------



## Doggie doggie

Alxmrphi said:


> It's the same for me in Italian, it drives me insane! But it's something we all have to do unfortunately!
> But keep it up and you'll understand it soon!


Thanks Alxmrphi, I have made my mind never ever give up. 
And I am reading and thinking all your  posts and will let you know my reflection later. Thanks again.

Doggie


----------



## kalamazoo

I think we English speakers have quite a few tendencies to be sloppy about what tense we use. (You can find this out when you try to learn another language that is more particular about it!)  An English learner should probably try to follow the rules about tenses but not be surprised when the native speakers don't use them too precisely. My impression is that we often use a tense that is not as "past" as the correct tense - we use the perfect instead of the past perfect or, as here, the present instead of the past.

In this case, I think most native speakers would assume that the question was "where do you go to school" regardless of whether we said "I asked him where he goes to school" or "I asked him where he went to school" if the person in question was someone who probably was going to school at the time the question was asked.   However, given more context, a different interpretation could be more plausible.  Similarly, suppose I meet someone who is 70 years old and I ask him "Where did you go to school?"  I could say "I asked him where he went to school" but more properly I probably should say "I asked him where he had gone to school."


----------



## Alxmrphi

I totally agree with the sloppyness of tenses! I agreed with almost everything, except the last part (sorry!)
I really don't see how the past perfect would be used, generally when explaining this tense, I explain that it's used as a way to lock in a specific time reference around which other actions can be explained, to set up the context of a story etc, to then go on to explain what happened after you asked him that question.

As a standalone kind of sentence the past perfect seems unusual to me here, but I think this might be a bit off topic.

Like you mentioned about the 70 year old, context is everything really!
There is also the issue of direct speech vs reported speech, (goes to check grammar book)


----------



## kalamazoo

I think it's a reported speech  issue, not a time reference issue.

If the question I asked was about something that had already happened at tthe point that I asked the question, then I would shift it into the past perfect in reported speech  if I wanted to be correct.  
"Did you see the parade yesterday?"
I asked him if he had seen the parade yesterday.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> If the question I asked was about something that had already happened at tthe point that I asked the question, then I would shift it into the past perfect in reported speech if I wanted to be correct.
> "Did you see the parade yesterday?"
> I asked him if he had seen the parade yesterday.


Completely agree with that point, but before that, I wanted to make a distinction between 'long-action' verbs, where '_seeing_' the parade is something that definitely happened yesterday, no reference to the present..

I found this in my grammar book: (Grammar for English Language Teachers)



> *Choosing between present and past*
> 
> Mechanical conversion exercises and tests often require learners to change the tense of verbs that come after the reporting verb. We may often choose to make these changes, but in fact when we want to make clear that circumstances have not changed since the original statement or question, we use a present rather than a past tense.


This satisfies me that 'lives/lived' are both correct in the previous part of the thread.


----------



## kalamazoo

Wasn't the original point something about whether "lived" would mean that you were asking not about where the person lives now, but rather about where he had lived previously?  So from my own idiolect and from your grammar book both, even if the person still lives in the same place, you could use "lived."  "Lived" doesn't imply that the person no longer lives there.  I think that was the original issue, although I have rather lost  my grip on it by now.


----------



## Alxmrphi

kalamazoo said:


> Wasn't the original point something about whether "lived" would mean that you were asking not about where the person lives now, but rather about where he had lived previously?  So from my own idiolect and from your grammar book both, even if the person still lives in the same place, you could use "lived."  "Lived" doesn't imply that the person no longer lives there.  I think that was the original issue, although I have rather lost  my grip on it by now.



The impression I got was that the OP was a bit confused about which one would be correct, I mentioned that both would be, and then I think we began to talk about what possible differences each one had, and I tried to think of some differences and said something along the lines of 'lived' takes the time-focus to "_of the time when this happened_ (yesterday)" wheras the present carries the meaning of "_still relevant to right now when I'm asking you_" (but in this context we have a choice as the relevance is still to the present, but it wouldn't work with other verbs like to see / to hear, used for specific events)



> So from my own idiolect and from your grammar book both, even if the person still lives in the same place, you could use "lived.


I think we've hit the nail on the head!


----------



## Doggie doggie

> Mechanical conversion exercises and tests often require learners to change the tense of verbs that come after the reporting verb. We may often choose to make these changes, but in fact when we want to make clear that circumstances have not changed since the original statement or question, we use a present rather than a past tense.


Alxmrphi, could you please give me some examples? I can't catch its meaning. Thanks.


----------



## kalamazoo

I think this is what Alxmrphi means. If I say "I asked him where he goes to school" you can assume that he is still going to school now.  If I say "I asked him where he went to school" then he may or may not still be going to school.

So using ""goes" means that he definitely is stiill going to school.  However, using "went" in this case is also okay and not incorrect.

So, if he is still going to school, use "goes" or "went."
If he is not still going to school, use "went."

I think.


----------



## Doggie doggie

Ok,thanks. I am closing down, bye for now.


----------



## Doggie doggie

Guys,I reviewed what you said just now and am trying to let you know what I understand. When we are reporting what one said, either present or past tense verb can follow the reporting verb, which means he is doing .
For examples: He told his father he went to a party = He told his father he goes to a party.

Thanks for all your help

Doggie


----------



## Cagey

I most cases, when we use the present after told or another past tense in reported speech, we are talking about something that is still true in the present.  We would not use the present in your sample sentence.  

If we meant that he is going to a party now, or plans to go in the future, we could report  the conversation as:_ He told his father that he is going to a party.  _

(This is ambiguous; he might be going now; we might be talking about what he is planning to do tomorrow.  Its meaning depends on the rest of the context.)​If we meant that he said he goes to parties regularly, we would say:_ He told his father that he goes to parties.
_​We would not use the present tense if he was talking about an action that was in the past by the time we were reporting the conversation.


----------



## panjandrum

Doggie doggie said:


> ...
> For examples: He told his father he went to a party = He told his father he goes to a party.
> ...


Sorry, DD, this is not correct.

If your home is in Bognor, you live in Bognor continually.
You can say "I live in Bognor."
It is like an ongoing truth.

If you are still attending school, you go to school continually.
You can say "I go to school."
It is like an ongoing truth.

A party is an individual event.  You go to a party on the date of the party.  
You can't say "I go to a party."

When you are transforming from direct speech/thought to reported speech, it is not always necessary to back-shift "onging truths" - statements about something that happens all the time. It is necessary to back-shift one-off statements.

Why am I talking about the direct/reported speech transformation?
Because that's what this is.
*A: If I had met her yesterday, I would have asked her where she lives/ lived.*
Regardless of the conditional form, the subunctive, or anything else, this sentence is the reported speech version of:
*B: If I had met her yesterday, I would have asked her "Where do you live?"
*
As has been discussed in many of the direct/indirect speech threads, transforming B to indirect speech can use either form of A. It depends on the context which comes most naturally.


----------



## Loob

This thread seems to have wandered a bit.

Looking back at the original question, I agree with Alx:





Alxmrphi said:


> I would ask him where he lived (5 years ago)
> I would ask him where he lives (right now)


----------



## kalamazoo

I disagree with Alx.
I would ask him where he lived (right now)
I would ask him where he lives (right now)
I would ask him where he lived (5 years ago)
I would ask him where he had lived (5 years ago)


----------



## Doggie doggie

kalamazoo said:


> I disagree with Alx.
> I would ask him where he lived (right now)    agree
> I would ask him where he lives (right now)    disagree
> I would ask him where he lived (5 years ago)   disagree
> I would ask him where he had lived (5 years ago)   agree


 
Hi, kalamazoo, What I am more confused about is what tense of verb we are goining to use after reporting verb in a subjunctive.
I would like to give you an example; *If I were you, I would report to officers  the girl is/was  missing*. (suppose the girl is missing now). 
Thanks.

Doggie


----------



## Forero

Timlo said:


> Hi,
> Should *I* use "lived or "lives"? The "him" here is a person *I* will never meet.
> *T*hanks*.*


The same sentence can have multiple interpretations. To decide between _lived_ and _lives_, we have to know what you mean to say. Some things to consider:


_Met_ can be either indicative or subjunctive.
_Would_ can be interpreted lots of different ways.
There are (at least) two kinds of reported speech:


A simple statement that someone said something. For example, "He said, 'I am coming on the evening of May 26'." >> "He said he would be coming on the evening of May 26."
A paraphrasing of information with mention of the source. For example, "He said, 'I am coming on the evening of May 26.'" >> "He said he will be coming tonight." = "He will be coming tonight. He said so."


_If _clauses do not have to tense shift even when modifying a tense-shifted clause or verb.



Timlo said:


> When it is in subjunctive mood,do I have to change the tense into past tense after "would"?


No, you never have to tense shift after _would_, but it is sometimes natural to do so, depending on what you mean.


----------



## Doggie doggie

Hi,Forero, for my understanding, as a English learner, Timlo is going to question that in a subjuctive, what tense verb after reporting verb could be used?


----------



## Forero

In a "contrary-to-fact" conditional sentence, a subordinate clause does not have to tense shift. For example:

_If I were you, I would report to the police that  the girl was  missing.
_This sentence is natural sounding and does not say whether the girl is missing now.

_If I were you, I would report to the police  that the girl is  missing._
This sentence says the girl is missing now, at least in the hypothetical world.

It is interesting that "were missing" is not possible here, and that  "would be missing", though possible, would not be "agreeing" with "would report" tensewise.


----------



## Doggie doggie

Thanks, Forero,


> It is interesting that "were missing" is not possible here, and that "would be missing", though possible, would not be "agreeing" with "would report" tensewise.


I can't catch the above interpretation you said, could you explain more?
Thanks again.

Doggie


----------



## panjandrum

Doggie doggie said:


> Thanks, Forero,
> 
> I can't catch the above interpretation you said, could you explain more?
> Thanks again.
> 
> Doggie


There are three verbs in the latest sentence:
_If I were (1) you, I would report (2) to the police that  the girl is (3) missing._

The first two verbs should follow the pattern of a conditional sentence.

The third is not part of the conditional structure and should follow the pattern of direct -> indirect speech transformation.
Think of the sentence like this:
_If I were you, I would say (report) to the police "The girl is missing".
_The girl is still missing so this transforms to ... _that the girl is missing._


----------



## Doggie doggie

Thanks panjandrum, can I think that there is no need to swiitch the tense of the third verb?


> The third is not part of the conditional structure and should follow the pattern of direct -> indirect speech transformation.
> Think of the sentence like this:
> _If I were you, I would say (report) to the police "The girl is missing"._
> The girl is still missing so this transforms to ... _that the girl is missing._


Thanks.


----------



## boozer

Forero said:


> A simple statement that someone said something. For example, "He said, 'I am coming on the evening of May 26'." >> "He said he would be coming on the evening of May 26."



Just a very small remark, if you don't mind, Forero. 
Strictly speaking, when doing "reported speech" exercises we should stick to the sequence of tenses and try to preserve the tense in the original sentence, only making it _past_. That's what I mean:
"He said, 'I am coming...  ... He said he was coming...
as opposed to
"He said, 'I will be coming... ... He said he would be coming...
and so:
am, is  was
are  were
will  would
etc.
however:
would  would

Hope I don't sound overly pedantic or (God forbid ) wrong.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Boozer I completely agree with you, I was going to make a comment about it but couldn't find a concise way to do it! 



> "He said, 'I am coming...  ... He said he was coming...



Also noting that "he said he's coming" can be used if it's relevant to now, if the thing that he said he is/was coming to, hasn't happened yet.


----------

