robinast:Thanks to all for your explanations!
I think I understood at once how the Esperanto language uses the reported speech... but I continue to get messages like this from my tutor:

He said he was unhappy. [happy = feliĉa] (a sentence to be translated)
Li diris, ke li estas malfeliĉa. (my translation)

ERROR: ...estIS malfeliĉa. WAS unhappy. (the tutor's comment)

He also refuses to explain in which I have mistaken, saying that this is not important. And I myself do not see any reasons why I must not take the backshift of tenses into account here...

Estonian language unlike the English (and like the Esperanto) does not use the backshift of tenses in the reported speech, so the way how Esperanto deals with the indirect speech seems very natural to me

Amike,
Harri.

Well ultimately it depends on whatever tense 'he' (the guy who was unhappy) was talking in.

He if said 'I was unhappy' then logically you have to keep it as 'He said he WAS unhappy'. Because the tutor probably didn't know what tense the guy was originally talking in, it makes it hard to gauge.

To me, it simply seems like a general statement which could be translated two ways. For example, 'I'm going to hope' could mean 'I will hope' or 'I am going towards a person whose name is Hope'. I wouldn't worry about this, it's probably just one of those things. Unless the tutor is an English speaker, maybe then it might be a mistake of theirs.

ceigered:

He if said 'I was unhappy' then logically you have to keep it as 'He said he WAS unhappy'.

... and not to use the backshift á la 'He said he had been unhappy.'? Why?

I understand that in some cases the backshift of tenses is not necessary, e.g. when statements are still true. Like this:
'He said, "I am unhappy" ' could be 'He said he was unhappy' or 'He said he is unhappy' (in case if he still is unhappy). But this seems not to be the case in the example I provided because the "I was unhappy" indicates that the speaker was not unhappy at the time of speaking (otherwise, he would have said "I am unhappy").

Amike,
Harri.

robinast:I continue to get messages like this from my tutor:

He said he was unhappy. [happy = feliĉa] (a sentence to be translated)
Li diris, ke li estas malfeliĉa. (my translation)
ERROR: ...estIS malfeliĉa. WAS unhappy. (the tutor's comment)

He also refuses to explain in which I have mistaken, saying that this is not important..

The usual way of interpreting "He said that he was unhappy" is "He said 'I am unhappy.' "

Therefore, I think your tutor is mistaken. He is translating "He said that he had been unhappy" (but was feeling better at the time of speaking).

If your tutor is not willing to even discuss the matter, possibly you should get another tutor!

Your tutor may be excellent in general, but in this case he is wrong.

"Li diris, ke li ESTIS malfeliĉa" means "He said HE HAD BEEN unhappy", because the time when "estis malfeliĉa" happened is previous to the time when he "diris".

Regards,

Daniel

robinast:Thanks to all for your explanations!
I think I understood at once how the Esperanto language uses the reported speech... but I continue to get messages like this from my tutor:

He said he was unhappy. [happy = feliĉa] (a sentence to be translated)
Li diris, ke li estas malfeliĉa. (my translation)

ERROR: ...estIS malfeliĉa. WAS unhappy. (the tutor's comment)

He also refuses to explain in which I have mistaken, saying that this is not important. And I myself do not see any reasons why I must not take the backshift of tenses into account here...

Estonian language unlike the English (and like the Esperanto) does not use the backshift of tenses in the reported speech, so the way how Esperanto deals with the indirect speech seems very natural to me

Amike,
Harri.

Ceigered, please don't think for a moment that I'm trying to teach you your own language, but...

...as far as I have learnt about the English indirect speech (which happens to match the Spanish one), this is how one should switch between both speeches:

Direct: He said "I was unhappy".
Indirect: He said he had been unhappy.

Direct: He said "I am unhappy".
Indirect: He said he was unhappy.

Or is there an informal or colloquial use in English which departs from the formal grammar I was taught? (This is a real question, not a rhetorical one).

Regards,

Daniel

ceigered:
He if said 'I was unhappy' then logically you have to keep it as 'He said he WAS unhappy'. Because the tutor probably didn't know what tense the guy was originally talking in, it makes it hard to gauge.

Thank you very much, Daniel and Miland! With your kind help I've cleared things up for myself. I had already started to think that what I learned at school 30 years ago about backshifting of tenses in the English reported speech was wrong...
I do not think that it would make sense to look for an another tutor now as only the last lesson has remained. But if I were in such a situation from the beginning, I would have looked for someone else indeed.

Amike,
Harri.

Hi danielcg

We definitely do use the "had been" form; he said that he had been unhappy.

However, in colloquial use, I suspect that many English speakers use a simple "was" in many cases when "had been" would be correct.

One issue with this, is that we don't precisely remember what people say, and that ends up being important for indirect speech. So let's say I talked to someone in the past. I remember him expressing unhappiness with something. I could say this as "He said he was unhappy" (He said, "I am unhappy"), or else as "He said he had been unhappy" (He said, "I was unhappy"). I might remember his general expression, but not remember whether he said "am" or "was". In this case, I (and most English speakers) am likely to default to the "was" form in reported speech ("He said he was unhappy")

robinast, please contact me privately about your tutoring issues. I am on the lernu team, and I am responsible for keeping an eye on tutoring.

danielcg:as far as I have learnt about the English indirect speech (which happens to match the Spanish one), this is how one should switch between both speeches:

Direct: He said "I was unhappy".
Indirect: He said he had been unhappy.

Direct: He said "I am unhappy".
Indirect: He said he was unhappy.

Or is there an informal or colloquial use in English which departs from the formal grammar I was taught? (This is a real question, not a rhetorical one).

You're right all through. The 'had been' / 'have been' form is most clear, but 'was' can be used colloquially (well, colloquially isn't really the right word as it is grammatically correct, but it carries a much more general sense that relies on previous information for the meaning to be understood).
And don't worry, you can correct my English if you feel the need, it is my native language so I am likely to make mistakes without realising it

I guess this 'had been' / 'was' is something that Germanic languages tend to manipulate a lot, well at least more than others in my opinion (mind you the Germanic languages influence each other a lot) - however this I'm not 100% sure on so if anyone begs to differ please say so.

robinast:. but I continue to get messages like this from my tutor:

He said he was unhappy. [happy = feliĉa] (a sentence to be translated)
Li diris, ke li estas malfeliĉa. (my translation)

ERROR: ...estIS malfeliĉa. WAS unhappy. (the tutor's comment)

Actually your tutor may be right....but so could you. Your tutor might have in mind that "he" actually said "I was unhappy." Was there any context to this sentence that could show whether "he" said "I am unhappy" or "I was unhappy?"