And 'Li diris, ke li estis hejme.' would be 'He said he has been at home

Unfortunately Robinast, the rules of English don't allow you to say that.

If the 'diris' is to be 'said' then you can say 'he had been at home' or 'he was at home'. The pastness of 'said' has an influence on the subclause and requires a past form in the subclause.

Sudanglo:Unfortunately Robinast, the rules of English don't allow you to say that.

Are you sure about that Sudanglo?

"He said he's been at home the last few days" seems perfectly good English to me, describing someone who's literally "has been at home" at the very time that you're saying that.

E.g. "What about Clive's share of the workload?" "Ah, he said he's been at home the last couple of days and hasn't worked on it because he left his info here at university".

"he said he'd been at home" to me sounds like you're saying "he was saying about how he was home (at that time he's recounting)".

E.g. "Clive said how he had been livin' rather straight before he was involved in that burglary. Pity what happened to him, he was a good kid!"

(Clive gets around these days)

sudanglo:

And 'Li diris, ke li estis hejme.' would be 'He said he has been at home

Unfortunately Robinast, the rules of English don't allow you to say that.

If the 'diris' is to be 'said' then you can say 'he had been at home' or 'he was at home'. The pastness of 'said' has an influence on the subclause and requires a past form in the subclause.

You do know better, of course - English is not my native language. And I guess, I did my last English exercises of turning a direct speech into an indirect more than 20 years ago...

As I remember, my English teacher taught me then, that one has to 'shift tenses in subclauses one step towards the past' in that order: Present Simple (is) --- Past Simple (was) --- Present Perfect (has been) --- Past Perfect (had been). In the light of what did you say, this seems to be not quite so... Should it be as follows?

[LISTO]
He said: "I was at home." --- He said that he had been at home.[/list]

robinast:Should it be as follows?

[LISTO]
He said: "I was at home." --- He said that he had been at home.[/list]

I actually found "He said that he's been at home" more natural (he's instead of "he was" though, just sounds much more natural that way).

Depends on the context though, since, at least for me and people I speak to (I doubt it's regional though?), we tend to base the tense on the time of speaking, and what state the thing we're talking about is in.

Here's one pair showing the difference, if it can be seen:
"Joe reported to the police about the night when he had seen the burglar" = very much like in a book, or recounting a story.

"Joe reported to the cops about when he saw the burglar" = more conversational/spoken (joe saw a burglar, and he talked to the cops about it).

=====

With "Said" sentences, it's more obvious how the second part can take tenses in two different ways though. So the first is literal, very booky, keeping the tenses in order, where as the second is more stative, you're saying what is fact, and because it is a "standalone" fact it can take a tense relative to "now" rather than the other part of the sentence.

"Joe said that he was going to come with us" vs. "Joe said he's coming with us", for a final example. The latter shows that "joe's coming with us (from what the speaker's heard/believes)".

I'll stress again though that books, recounts, and formal communication use the first form though, since a recount has to keep the tenses relative to each other to make sense If I read a book that said "Harry Potter said to the evil wizard of oz that he has crossed the line", I instantly relate that tense to right now, and go "Oh, the evil wizard has crossed the line!", as if it's a specific, completed action in real life, and that we need to stress that the action is now complete and still not going on (so it even sounds a bit recent too)

@sudanglo:
I made a quick search in the Internet and understood the cause of my mistake: Estonian grammar treats the Present Perfect ('täisminevik', literally 'full-past') as a past tense, while English treats it as a present tense. That's why I have got the teacher's rule wrong.

Well, it also means, that if to turn "He said that he had been at home." back to the direct speech, one never knows, what exactly was said - "I was at home" or "I have been at home."

ceigered:I actually found "He said that he's been at home" more natural .

According to http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/reportedspeec..., sudanglo is right and I have mistaken.

This concept was a little difficult for me at first. In English we would say "I saw that she was there." In Esperanto you say "Mi vidis, ke ŝi estas tie." I thought of it like this: "Mi vidis..." now, think of the time at which I saw- what did I see?- "She is here." English: "She said that she was happy." She said (at the time) "I am happy." therefore, in Esperanto: "Ŝi diris, ke ŝi estas ĝoja."

robinast:

ceigered:I actually found "He said that he's been at home" more natural .

According to http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/reportedspeec..., sudanglo is right and I have mistaken.

Strange, must be more conservative/formal sociolects. I normally only encounter that sort of tense change in formal speech* or books. My parents who are both pretty normal speakers, not too formal, not too colloquial (unlike me who's all over the place) find that things like "Jerry said he's eaten an apple" is much eaiser on the ears, where as "had eaten an apple" seems correct but not normal when spoken.

Perhaps though this is technically a hybrid between direct speech, indirect speech and "stating facts as they are" (e.g. we know because what Jerry said that he's eaten an apple).

*People who speak formally and are very concerned about their grammar as a force of habit, so that it's natural for them to speak that way, and sounds natural to listen to them - as opposed to simply being polite in the presence of formal company.

(This link actually describes what I'm trying to say, but I'd go as far as saying that the simple past (just -ed) can take the place of pluperfect)

unlike me who's all over the place

You said it Ceiger, not me.

Yes Robinast, I looked at the link that you gave and that seems to me to be a good (and surprisingly comprehensive) account of how it works in standard British English.

When I watch American films on TV, I don't notice significant deviation from the rules described there. So I imagine their tense usage largely follows the same pattern.

As the article points out there are some cases when the standard past-shift might not apply (where you are concerned with the current situtation).

A good example of that might be 'Who told you she speaks French' versus 'Who told you she spoke French'

Sudanglo:You said it Ceiger, not me.

Indeed I did, but I'm pretty certain this time it's not just me.

I am beginning to wonder whether this is more a dialectal difference than a difference between registers/sociolects, or whether there's some fine distinction I'm missing here.

(DELETED SINCE THE NEXT POST PRETTY MUCH SOLVES MY PROBLEM)

Overall, I think this might belong on this wiki page .

Ah, this saves a lot of time and effort.

Sequences of tenses #Attracted Sequence@ Wikipedia.

(There's also this link which has an interested discussion on the topic of pragmatism but I feel is a bit too heavy handed in its wording at the start)

Wikipedia:
In English there are several views as to the exact rules governing the sequence of tenses, particularly with respect to verbs in superordinate and subordinate clauses, and debate over this point amongst grammarians that goes back as far as the 18th century.[3]
[...]
One view is the natural sequence of tenses. According to this view, the tense of a verb in a subordinate clause is not determined by the tense of the verb in the superordinate clause, but is determined simply according to the sense of the clause taken apart from the rest of the sentence.
[...]
The rule for writers following the natural sequence of tenses can be expressed as follows: Imagine yourself at the point in time denoted by the main verb, and use the tense for the subordinate verb that you would have used at that time.
[...]
[...]
Another view is the attracted sequence of tenses. According to this view, the tense of a verb in a subordinate clause is determined by the tense of the verb in the superordinate clause. It is this view, and the problems that it causes, that has generated the most discussion amongst grammarians.[3]
The attracted sequence can be summarized as follows: If the main verb of a sentence is in the past tense, then other verbs must also express a past viewpoint, except when a general truth is being expressed.[6]

Follow by examples:

I had hoped never to have seen [the statues] again when I missed them on the bridge. (Attracted Sequence)
I had hoped never to see [the statues] again when I missed them on the bridge. (Natural Sequence)

Batman said that he needed a special key for the Batmobile. (Attracted Sequence)
Batman said that he needs a special key for the Batmobile. (Natural Sequence).

----

Thus, I appear to come from the "natural sequence" camp, or at least learnt my English that way.