In order to describe actions that were going to happen in the past, is it necessary to use an unwieldy construction like "estis [verb]onta", or can the conditional also serve this purpose, as in English and most Romance languages?

For instance: "He says that he will come", becomes "He said that he would come."

So, does "Li diras, ke li venos", become "Li diris, ke li venus", or is it much more complicated than that?

Another example: "In 1997, analysts did not know how much the price would rise in ten years". Does this make sense as "En 1997, analizistoj ne sciis kiom la prezo altiĝus dum dek jaroj", or must I say something more like "...kiom la prezo estis altiĝonta..." or can I even say, "...altiĝontis..."?

Or is it something different completely?

kledermans:In order to describe actions that were going to happen in the past, is it necessary to use an unwieldy construction like "estis [verb]onta", or can the conditional also serve this purpose, as in English and most Romance languages?

For instance: "He says that he will come", becomes "He said that he would come."

So, does "Li diras, ke li venos", become "Li diris, ke li venus", or is it much more complicated than that?

Another example: "In 1997, analysts did not know how much the price would rise in ten years". Does this make sense as "En 1997, analizistoj ne sciis kiom la prezo altiĝus dum dek jaroj", or must I say something more like "...kiom la prezo estis altiĝonta..." or can I even say, "...altiĝontis..."?

Esperanto treats your two examples differently.

You can use -us in the context of "Ili ne scias kiom la prezo altiĝus".

But with "reported speech" it doesn't work quite the same way.

For example, in a sentence like "He said that he was going to go to the store". In English, we say use verbs differently depending on whether we are quoting someone exactly or not. So we say "He said 'I am going to go to the store'", or we say "He said that he was going to go to the store."

In English, the verb "go" switches tenses, depending on whether we quote him exactly (He said,"...") or whether we just report what he said (He said that...)

In Esperanto, we don't distinguish between these. We say "Li diris 'Mi iros al la vendejo'", or "Li diris ke li iros al la vendejo"

We use "iros" in both cases, even though the English distinguishes between "am going" and "was going"

So the answer to your question is that "Li diras ke li venos" is "He says that he will come" and "Li diris ke li venos" is "He said that he would come"

"Li diris ke li venus" is not wrong but the meaning is different - the conditional form adds uncertainty. The listener is waiting for a "but...". For example "Li diris ke li venus, sed fine li ne havis tempon kaj ne venis". Saying "Li diris ke li venus" is like saying in English "I would come". The sentence "I would come" leaves the listener hanging; there's almost an unspoken "but" or "if" in there, and the listener mentally pauses and waits for more information. The sentence feels incomplete; you're waiting for the end of it, something like "...but I don't have time", or "if I had enough money", or something like that.

All right, but even in the example of the price that "would rise", it's not a question of whether or not the price actually rises, but a statment that the price was going to rise, which we know now but did not know in 1997. Is "la prezo altiĝus" still correct in this case?

Sorry to seem thick or insistent about this point.

kledermans:All right, but even in the example of the price that "would rise", it's not a question of whether or not the price actually rises, but a statment that the price was going to rise, which we know now but did not know in 1997. Is "la prezo altiĝus" still correct in this case?

Sorry to seem thick or insistent about this point.

The problem with the sentence about the analysts is that in English, it's ambiguous about whether the analysts knew for a fact that the price would rise. You could interpret it either that the analysts knew the price would rise (but not how much), or you could interpret it that the analysts supposed the price might rise, but they didn't know that for a fact.

If the analysts knew for a fact, 100%, that the prices would rise, then "altiĝos" is probably correct. If there was any doubt at all, or any uncertainty, then I would use "altiĝus".

For instance: "He says that he will come", becomes "He said that he would come."

I don't think that this is accurate english, however. It could be directly translate into Li diris ke li venus, but in both case it is missing the actual condition: He said that he would come if...

There is a similar misuse of conditional tense in french as well.

Islander:

For instance: "He says that he will come", becomes "He said that he would come."

I don't think that this is accurate english, however. It could be directly translate into Li diris ke li venus, but in both case it is missing the actual condition: He said that he would come if...

There is a similar misuse of conditional tense in french as well.

That is not a misuse of conditional tense in English or in French. The future tense in an indirect citation necessarily takes the form of the conditional in both languages without requiring an actual "condition", hence my confusion.

I can't speak for French, since my knowledge of it is very basic, but what kledermans says about English is correct.

Here is a website summarizing how "reported speech" in English involves a change of tense:

http://www.englisch-hilfen.de/en/grammar/reported....

You'll note that (in the example they give) "will work" turns into "would work" when you move from a direct quote to reported speech.

Okay, let's try this one: "Was going to", which necessarily reflects a future situation from the past:

"He says that he's going to come", in English, becomes, "He said that he was going to come."

Do I correctly understand that to be accurately reflected in Esperanto as, "Li diris ke li venos"?

Again with the rising-price scenario. Assume that we know for a fact that the price did rise, but it hadn't yet at the moment referenced. On one hand, I can accept that you would translate "They thought that the price was going to rise" as, "Ili pensis ke la prezo altiĝos"(if that is indeed correct), but how would you translate the clause "The price was going to rise" by itself? Must you necessarily say "La prezo estis altiĝonta?"

kledermans:Okay, let's try this one: "Was going to", which necessarily reflects a future situation from the past:

"He says that he's going to come", in English, becomes, "He said that he was going to come."

Do I correctly understand that to be accurately reflected in Esperanto as, "Li diris ke li venos"?

Yes, that's correct.

Again with the rising-price scenario. Assume that we know for a fact that the price did rise, but it hadn't yet at the moment referenced. On one hand, I can accept that you would translate "They thought that the price was going to rise" as, "Ili pensis ke la prezo altiĝos"(if that is indeed correct), but how would you translate the clause "The price was going to rise" by itself? Must you necessarily say "La prezo estis altiĝonta?"

Excellent question! In some cases, you can use the -us ending and a word showing time, instead of using one of these 'combined' (verb+participle) forms. But this isn't one of those cases, unfortunately. I think you have to say "La prezo estis altigxonta".

Some people would say "La prezo altigxontis". This is a rare usage, however. I don't believe it is considered wrong, but it has a lot of information packed into a small space, so it's not very easy to understand.

A form like "altigxintus" ("would have risen") is common, however. These kinds of "participle and verb all in one" forms are normally only seen when the verb ending is -us.

Okay... Just for fun, and to validate the title of this thread, let's try a "past-in-future" example.

The sentence: "You will tell them that I have left".

Would this be, "Vi diros al ili, ke mi foriris"?