You are over-complicating the issue, Ceiger.

It is pretty simple really, the normal pattern is illlustrated by 'He said he was coming to the party' - actual words 'I am coming'.

In other words, as documented comprehensively in the link that Robinast gave.

The deviation from this past-shift pattern occurs when you wish to emphasize the current situation and to avoid any misunderstanding that might arise with the standard pattern.

So applying this to your Batman example (the first example you use doesn't even have an appropriate subordinate clause) we get

1. Batman said he needed a special key - he might not still need the key - his actual words were 'I need a special key'

2. Batman said he needs a special key - the need is current - implication: he still can't start the Batmobile (perhaps, you could help by looking for the key).

This second nuance can also be expressed with a present tense in the main clause - He says he needs the special key.

I don't know how you learnt your English, Ceiger, but it often reads like that of a non-native speaker.

Eg 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 - It's an interesting discussion and I feel it is a bit ..

sudanglo:You are over-complicating the issue, Ceiger.

Only for democracy, equality and fraternity and other things we commoners and plebeians in society love and enjoy

The deviation from this past-shift pattern occurs when you wish to emphasize the current situation and to avoid any misunderstanding that might arise with the standard pattern.

Are you sure? The way I do it doesn't seem to have any misunderstandings.

1. Batman said he needed a special key - he might not still need the key - his actual words were 'I need a special key'

2. Batman said he needs a special key - the need is current - implication: he still can't start the Batmobile (perhaps, you could help by looking for the key).

This second nuance can also be expressed with a present tense in the main clause - He says he needs the special key.

That's just how I'd write it though. However, if Batman said "I needed a special key", I'd probably say "Batman said he needed a special key" anyway, or just outright quote it. Like I keep harping on about, I suspect in Australia and perhaps in the general middle-class-and-below sociolect world wide "said" might have a slightly more ambiguous meaning, ranging from the physical act of producing words, to the inference of information based on someone saying something.

Of course, it might just be that you guys got taught different things in school. There's been a lot of "rules" in English that force particular ways of using the English language which aren't actually "rules" that have been naturally developed, but more "rules" because some teacher or grammarian thought of the idea and went "OK, we do it this way now, everyone!"

I don't know how you learnt your English, Ceiger, but it often reads like that of a non-native speaker.

Eg 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 - It's an interesting discussion and I feel it is a bit ..

First bit's a typo actually!
Second bit, I'd still technically regard it as native but now you've pointed it out I feel awkward every time I reread it (in writing it should probably have the "it" there, but since I'm online here almost exclusively late at night, I hope you'll allow me clemency in my ability to skip and misspell words quite regularly, not to mention I type faster than my computer likes (lag!), and often backspace things out then go crazy-typing again, often leaving stupidly worded phrasing behind from my frankenstein-esque typing skills)

But I take it pronoun dropping doesn't happen much in your circles (in spoken language)?

(Also, I sometimes feel the same about your English simply because you write it like you're authoring a classic novel, so clearly we're worlds apart eh? )

(EDIT - I think I know why I've written "but I feel is", seems in spoken language, "it" has disappeared into the pronunciation of "is", spurred on by colloquial pronoun dropping. I don't think that such a way of speaking is used much outside of my generation, sociolect and dialect)

Going back to what Darkweasel was saying about state/action, perhaps it's helpful to consider 'skribite'?

"Sur la muro estas skribite: Geoffrey estis ĉi tie"

That sounds normal, because it refers to the current 'state' of something having been written and recorded on the wall (so that we can now still read it on the wall).

Maybe it's possible to think of 'dirite' in the same way?:

"En la libro estas dirite: blah blah" - this represents the 'state' of something having been said and recorded in a book (bringing the message to the present)

Sometimes 'skribite' and 'dirite' seem to be interchangeable, as in this example from "Fabeloj de Andersen 4" (from the Tekstaro):

Estas vero, ke sur la titola paĝo estas dirite ‘Abocolibro por grandaj kaj malgrandaj', sed la grandaj havas ion alian por fari, ol legi en la abocolibro, kaj la malgrandaj ĝin ne povas kompreni! Ĉio devas havi limon! Sed pluen!

This sort of thing, Ceiger, (the past shift) is not something that would get taught explicitly in school to a class of native speakers. It would not occur to the teacher to teach well-known patterns of usage.

Possibly it might have to be taught in some London schools where classes may be full of children with different mother tongues.

If Batman's actual words were 'I needed a special key', then it might get reported with 'that he needed' and not 'that he had needed'.

Need, incidentally, belongs to a class of verbs where the full range of tenses does not freely apply - some forms are uncommon or don't occur.

A problem for English is that the past shift in reported speech for a verb in the simple past, in direct speech, confounds with the shift applied to a verb in the present perfect in direct speech.

This may explain why, you can come across cases where the past shift of reported speech is not applied to a verb in the simple past in direct speech.

In any event, a sentence like 'He told me that he has done it' is distinctly odd.

sudanglo:This sort of thing, Ceiger, (the past shift) is not something that would get taught explicitly in school to a class of native speakers. It would not occur to the teacher to teach well-known patterns of usage.

Ah, but if they were so well-known, should we have learnt them naturally? Incidentally many people here don't seem to have done so, thus I find it hard to give my support for the attracted view of tense shifting (bad logic I know)

In any event, a sentence like 'He told me that he has done it' is distinctly odd.

Well, everyone I've asked so far reckons "He told me that he had done it" sounds* odder than "He told me that he's done it". In writing though, it's probably unanimous support for the former.

Perhaps this is an habit born from the overextended use of "He told me he did it", combined with the perfect. "He told me he had done it" seems to stress a sort of feeling that "he's done it once before" (perhaps in reply to the question "have you ever done XYZ").

*as in it doesn't sound right when spoken.

Chainy:Going back to what Darkweasel was saying about state/action, perhaps it's helpful to consider 'skribite'?

"Sur la muro estas skribite: Geoffrey estis ĉi tie"

That sounds normal (ĉu ne?), because it refers to the current 'state' of something having been written and recorded on the wall (so that we can now still read it on the wall).

Maybe it's possible to think of 'dirite' in the same way?:

"En la libro estas dirite: blah blah" - this represents the 'state' of something having been said and recorded in a book (bringing the message to the present)

I'd have to agree.. Mi konsentas kun vian ideon

Quite right Chainy, we should get back to the topic.

Though perhaps a discussion of the tenses in subordinate clauses in English illuminates the issue of tense usage in Esperanto.

However the problem in interpreting the biblical quote does not seem to me lie so much in the tense usage after certain verbs as in interpreting what 'estas dirite' would mean in a main clause.

I think that it is pretty clear that -ita can refer to the result of an action or the action itself. Mi trovis la pordon fermita, la kongreso estis malfermita de la Urbestro.

Literally 'estas dirite' means it is having been said - not elegant English, and Erinja's suggestion of 'it is said' sounds better.

But in English we don't always distinguish between -ata and -ita, so 'it is said' could cover either. Esperanto's 'estas parolata' becomes in English, Esperanto is spoken.

Can one justify the translation of 'Vi aŭdis, ke estas dirita' with 'You have heard that it was said'?

Technically, I think not. So I think I return to either you have heard that it has been said, or it is said.

PS somehow the interpetation of 'Vi aŭdis, ke oni diras' seems less problematic. The difference between that and 'Vi audis, ke oni diris' seems quite clear.

PPS Ceiger it is not kind to readers who are here to improve their English to encourage them to copy certain Colonials in your set with poor English.

PPS Mi konsentas kun via ideo - ne, vian ideon

sudanglo:PPS Ceiger it is not kind to readers who are here to improve their English to encourage them to copy certain Colonials in your set with poor English.

I could just say several things:

1) You might just speak out of date or ultraconservative English, ever thought of that?

2) Your derogatory implications in the usage of the world "colonial" are infuriating to say the least. I might remind you that Britain is no longer the only country that uses English, not to mention to Australians and Americans, many British speakers sound like they didn't go to school (laŭ nia komprenado de la reguloj de nia lingvo), to put it just as roughly as you have.

3) "Poor English", eh?...
I am dreadfully sorry dear chap, I did not mean to use such awful things like those dreaded contractions, and of course my utter disregard for split infinitives is no doubt appalling too. To add insult to injury, I even have a terrible habit of stranding prepositions when they should be rightfully placed in front of a noun. And zounds, I regret to inform you I speak not our fair and civilised language (purged of any lower-class impurities) in the same manner as our blessed queen! Whatever might we do about this conundrum?

Nevahmind mate! She'll be right as rain! We'll get this crook accent turned into a true true blue corker in just jiffy!

But I shouldn't be surprised. Given your comments on Globish, I'm pretty sure anything that isn't how you speak English is rubbish in your eyes. You don't even friggin bother to come to compromises or imagine a style of speaking outside of your own. Here I am trying to go "hey, mate, I think there's more variation in English here than simply what you're saying, how about we investigate this a little more!", but nup, none of that from you!

PPS Mi konsentas kun via ideo - ne, vian ideon

I'll be polite and thank you for your kind correction after what you said before.

Maybe we should cool off this discussion about English grammar? I'm sure most native speakers use it in very similar ways. Ok, there are certain differences between American, British, Australian English (etc..), but they're not that far off from each other.

It's just that most of us have never analysed our own grammar in fine detail, or even had to, so it's quite a headache when you suddenly try to make some sense of it!

Chainy:Going back to what Darkweasel was saying about state/action, perhaps it's helpful to consider 'skribite'?

"Sur la muro estas skribite: Geoffrey estis ĉi tie"

That sounds normal, because it refers to the current 'state' of something having been written and recorded on the wall (so that we can now still read it on the wall).

Maybe it's possible to think of 'dirite' in the same way?:

"En la libro estas dirite: blah blah" - this represents the 'state' of something having been said and recorded in a book (bringing the message to the present)

Sometimes 'skribite' and 'dirite' seem to be interchangeable, as in this example from "Fabeloj de Andersen 4" (from the Tekstaro):

Estas vero, ke sur la titola paĝo estas dirite ‘Abocolibro por grandaj kaj malgrandaj', sed la grandaj havas ion alian por fari, ol legi en la abocolibro, kaj la malgrandaj ĝin ne povas kompreni! Ĉio devas havi limon! Sed pluen!

This is exactly what I was trying to say.