Hi, Alexander! Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:

----- Beginning of the citation -----
The engineering firm building the bridge at Florida
International University had ordered Thursday that
the cables be tightened, Mr. Rubio, a Republican,
said in a late Thursday tweet. "They were being
tightened when it collapsed," he said.
----- The end of the citation -----

Any reported speech can be transferred back into direct
speech:

-----
Mr. Rubio said in a late Thursday tweet, "The engineering
firm building the bridge at Florida International
University ordered Thursday that the cables be tightened".
----

Theoretically I suppose you could do that, if indeed those were the
exact words Mr. Rubio used. But somebody else's account of what Mr. Rubio said
might be a condensation, a simplification, &/or a personal interpretation.

Suppose I order some widgets from the XYZ Company, and
I'm told "They should be at your door by 8:00 PM Friday."
At 9:00 PM on Friday I might say to Dallas "The XYZ Company
told me those widgets should be here by now." I see no need
to change the verb tense there if the widgets have not yet
arrived.

When your words are in quotation marks it is direct speech,
no changes are needed. In reported speech you remove quotation
marks:

At 9:00 on Friday I said ... that the XYZ Company _had told_ me
those widgets should have been here by then.

Uh-huh. Now you are telling the story in the past tense, whereas I
used the present tense... so you must use "had told" WRT what was said earlier.
I see you've grasped the idea I was trying to get across, and by using the word
"that" as a subordinating conjunction you've left no doubt in anybody's mind as
to whether I was reporting directly or indirectly on what the XYZ Company said.

The subordinating conjunction "that" may be... and often is... left
out, however, particularly in colloquial speech. As a Canadian I take pride in
the crisp efficiency of the English language when I see e.g. a cereal box where
it takes half again as much space to say the same thing in French. OTOH, I see
how people can get a bit too carried away with brevity sometimes. If you don't
include the conjunction, some readers may incorrectly assume that all they have
to do is put quotation marks around what I allegedly said to duplicate it. :-)

She answers "I was expecting [my boyfriend] to meet me
here tonight, but I think he must have forgotten."

Quotation marks here - direct speech is detected again.

Uh-huh. The punctuation indicates what I'd do with my voice, in an
oral conversation, to indicate that I'm reporting to the best of my ability the
exact words she used. I'd drop the pitch & pause slightly after "she answers".
Years ago, when the general pace of life was slower, I'd have put a comma after
"she answers" as well. That is what both Dallas & I were taught to do.... :-)

Susie said "The moon is made of green cheese."
but
Susie said that the moon was made of green cheese.

It is also correct, both sentences mean the same.

On the surface of it, the second option has the same meaning. Both
verbs are in the past tense... that's how such things typically work & I reckon
that's what most people would say. However, it could also be argued that while
Susie's opinion may have changed since I last heard from her the composition of
the moon probably hasn't. The language is flexible enough to allow you to say,
e.g., that Susie said (that) the moon is made of green cheese... or that Ardith
has told readers in the E_T echo (that) the city where she currently resides is
located in the southwestern corner of Canada. There's where the rule of common
sense takes precedence IMHO over the grammatical neatness of the textbook. :-)




--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)

Hi, Ardith Hinton!
I read your message from 14.04.2018 16:40
about to be or not to be that i.

----- Beginning of the citation -----
The engineering firm building the bridge at Florida International
University had ordered Thursday that the cables be tightened, Mr.
Rubio, a Republican, said in a late Thursday tweet. "They were
being tightened when it collapsed," he said.
----- The end of the citation -----

Any reported speech can be transferred back into direct speech:

-----
Mr. Rubio said in a late Thursday tweet, "The engineering firm
building the bridge at Florida International University ordered
Thursday that the cables be tightened".
----

Theoretically I suppose you could do that, if indeed those were the
exact words Mr. Rubio used. But somebody else's account of what Mr.
Rubio said might be a condensation, a simplification, &/or a
personal interpretation.

Well, IMHO, if reported speech distorts idea, there is no guarantee that direct
speech is correct either. It depends on the person who writes.

Suppose I order some widgets from the XYZ Company, and I'm
told "They should be at your door by 8:00 PM Friday." At 9:00 PM
on Friday I might say to Dallas "The XYZ Company told me those
widgets should be here by now." I see no need to change the verb
tense there if the widgets have not yet arrived.

When your words are in quotation marks it is direct speech, no
changes are needed. In reported speech you remove quotation marks:

At 9:00 on Friday I said... that the XYZ Company _had told_ me
those widgets should have been here by then.

Uh-huh. Now you are telling the story in the past tense, whereas I
used the present tense... so you must use "had told" WRT what was
said earlier. I see you've grasped the idea I was trying to get
across, and by using the word "that" as a subordinating conjunction
you've left no doubt in anybody's mind as to whether I was
reporting directly or indirectly on what the XYZ Company said.

If there is no quotation marks in your report it means it is 100% indirect speech.

The subordinating conjunction "that" may be... and often is... left
out, however, particularly in colloquial speech. As a Canadian I
take pride in the crisp efficiency of the English language when I
see e.g. a cereal box where it takes half again as much space to
say the same thing in French. OTOH, I see how people can get a bit
too carried away with brevity sometimes. If you don't include the conjunction, some readers may incorrectly assume that all they have
to do is put quotation marks around what I allegedly said to
duplicate it. :-)

As for "that", we probably also should take in mind that quotation marks are visible only in written speech. So, indeed, "that" can really help well the listener to recognize the reported speech beginning when he hears it.

<skipped>

... The language is flexible enough to allow you to say, e.g.,
that Susie said (that) the moon is made of green cheese... or that
Ardith has told readers in the E_T echo (that) the city where she currently resides is located in the southwestern corner of Canada.
There's where the rule of common sense takes precedence IMHO over
the grammatical neatness of the textbook. :-)

You, nevertheless, tell that there is a grammatical neatness of the textbook. ;-) Should it mean that according this neatness your sentence should be (in my report):
"Ardith has told readers ...(that) the city where she currently resides WAS located in the southwestern corner of Canada."

I see that "was located" sounds a bit funny, but should a teacher teach that a textbook can be ignored sometimes? ;-)

Bye, Ardith!
Alexander Koryagin
ENGLISH_TUTOR 2018

--- Paul's Win98SE VirtualBox
* Origin: Quinn's Post - Maryborough, Queensland, OZ (3:640/384)