Do you think that the following sentence is unnatural?
“John said to me her story was true.”(1)
江川泰一郎『英文法概説』（金子書房）では、「この形は普通ではない」と説明されています（p. 469）。
以下の言い方ならよいとなっています。
(The following sentences are not only correct but also natural.)
John said her story was true.(2)
John said, “Her story is true.”(3)
“Her story is true,” John said to me.(4)
I like the version you have at the bottom of your posting, John said her story was true. The first version is not wrong, but sounds a little stilted. You might have to say it that way if it is unclear to whom John is speaking.
The first three variations could be said and are natural. The last one is natural but normally without the emphasis on the last words (see below). How they are said orally – that is, which words a speaker stresses – will produce subtle differences in meaning.
John said to me her story was true.
This emphasizes that John told me that the girl’s/woman’s story was true. For example, the speaker is discussing the merits of the girl’s story with someone else. The sentence does not weigh in on whether the story is true or not but notes only from whom I received information about it: through John. He told me.
John said her story was true.
Orally a speaker could emphasize different words for various effects. If a speaker emphasizes John or John said, then the stress is on John vouching for the girl’s/woman/s story. The speaker could also emphasize the last word (true) and thus add weight that the story was “true” as opposed to a fabrication. The sentence says nothing about how “I” received the information.
John said, “Her story is true.”
This quotes John’s exact words. One sees this when it is written because of the quotation marks. However, if someone were stating, "John said, ‘her story is true,’ " then the speaker would audibly pause after “said,” to indicate that what follows is a direct quote. The speaker could also say, "John said, quote: “her story is true’.” The speaker could also use both hands to gesture quotation marks in the air to indicate that they are quoting John. Again, there is no information as to how “I” received the information.
“Her story is true,” John said to me.
This sentence is natural when uttered without the emphasis on “to me,” stating merely that John told me her story was true. It is not natural if the emphasis on the last words (to me). If the speaker wants to emphasize “to me,” then this phrase normally is placed earlier in the sentence: “John said to me her story was true.” Even more emphasis could be achieved by changing the verb: "John told me (or stated to me) her story was true. The verb “said” is neutral and merely indicates that John observed, noted, passed on some information. Yet using the word “told” or “stated” implies that John more deliberately, explicitly conveyed the information. An even stronger word is “declared.”
There is another possible variation. John said her story was true. He told me so.
This emphasizes that I got the information from John.
If I want to emphasize that John told me, as opposed to other persons, then I could say,
John said her story is true. He said that to me when we were talking yesterday.
By adding a clause as to when or where he said it to me (when we were talking yesterday), it emphasizes the specific context when I personally received the information. Without that clause/context, the oral emphasis would normally be placed on “said.” He said that to me.
This emphasizes that John is the one who conveyed the information.
If oral emphasis was placed on the last words (he said that to me) without any specific context, it calls attention to how startling it was that I received that information from John. For example, I know that the story is not true so the fact that John would say otherwise to me – of all persons, given what I know – is itself startling/notable/ironic/insulting. That is, somehow it does not fit or make sense with respect to my own knowledge of the facts that John would tell me the story was true when I knew that it was not.
In short, there are lots of subtle differences, depending on word order and oral emphasis. The most straightforward, common option would be, “John said her story was true.” Other variations would be used only if the speaker/author felt it necessary to add additional details.
You may have already said this, but, if the emphasis in on “John” when the sentence is spoken, as in “JOHN said it was true.” Then, oftentimes, the speaker is implying that John is a known liar and his statements can’t possibly be true. “JOHN said it was true” meaning it’s obviously false because John said it.
Haha, scgrant176: a good example that the broader context always affects the meaning of a particular sentence! By emphasizing that John said the story is true, the speaker/author distances him/herself from vouching for the truthfulness of the story. That is, someone else said the story is true. If that other person is a known liar or couldn’t possibly be in a position to know the facts, then the statement implies that the story may not be true. However, if John is a respected FBI agent, then the speaker/author is citing a reliable source. And of course there is also body language which can emphasize, shed doubt on or completely negate the very same words. (Imagine the speaker shrugging his/her shoulders or rolling his/her eyes when he/she utters any one of the options, thereby changing the meaning of the sentence.)
John told me her story was true.
Yes, “say” and “tell” are different. “Tell” needs “me”. You cannot omit it.
John told me her story was true.(5)
“His story is true,” John told me.(6)
John said to me, “Her story is true.” (7)
John told me, “Her story is true.” (8)
Egawa explains that these sentence are not correct.
江川泰一郎『英文法概説』（金子書房）の469-470ページ。
I don’t know Japanese so you’ll have to translate or summarize Egawa’s reasoning.
Thank you for your comment.
Egawa seems to refer to the following descriptions by Thomson and Martinet.
say, tell and alternative introductory verbs
say and tell with direct speech
say can introduce a statement or follow it:
Tom said, ‘I’ve just heard the news’ or ‘I’ve just heard the news,’ Tom said. Inversion of say and noun subject is possible when say follows the
statement:
‘I’ve just heard the news,’ said Tom.
say + to + person addressed is possible, but this phrase must follow the direct statement; it cannot introduce it:
‘I’m leaving at once,’ Tom said to me. Inversion is not possible here.
tell requires the person addressed:
Tell me. He told us. I’ll tell Tom. except with tell lies/stories/the truth, when the person addressed need not be mentioned:
He told (me) lies. I’ll tell (you) a story.
tell used with direct speech must be placed after the direct statement:
‘I’m leaving at once,’ Tom told me. Inversion is not possible with tell.
Thomson A. J. and A. V. Martinet, A Practical English Grammar, Oxford University Press, 1986.
Egawa notes that direct speech is often used in novels and stories, whereas indirect speech is often used in everyday speech. You use quotations marks in direct speech, but how can you use them while you are speaking? Do you say “quote” before the direct statement.
I am not used to quotation marks shown by fingers. Is it called “air quoting”?
T&M note that indirect speech is commonly used in oral speech. However, that does not mean that direct speech is never used orally. if the identity of the person and the exact words of of another person are critical – e.g., in a lecture, in testimony in court, or to clarify who said exactly what even in an informal conversation – then the exact words can be signaled by stating the word “quote” before the first quoted word. If the sentence ends and what follows is obviously not part of the quotation, then the speaker may not signal the end of the quote. In a lecture, court setting or other formal situation where the speaker is continuing to talk, he/she is likely to say “end quote” after the last quoted word to avoid any confusion about who said what.
While people can do this in informal settings as well, it is common in such settings for a speaker instead to use a gesture just before the beginning of the quotation. This involves raising both hands to face level (that is, one bends the elbows) and forming a “victory” gesture with one’s fingers (the second and third fingers are extended straight, the others are folder into the palm). The person quickly folds and unfolds the two fingers on each hand at the same time. This can be done once or twice, physically indicating the existence of quotation marks around the quoted words. Note that this is generally done at the beginning of the quoted phrase but not necessarily at the end. In informal speech, the end of the quote is normally obvious when the speaker pauses longer before continuing or else the speaker’s subsequent tone and content are very different from the quoted words.
The phrase, “John said to me/told me…” can appear before the quoted text or after in texts (newspapers, novels, etc.) when the author is recounting what someone says. HOWEVER, the reverse is also common in texts and routinely appears in oral speech. Here’s a quote from a newspaper article today:
“Collins told CNN Sunday, ‘I’m going to be talking with my colleagues,’ and declined to comment further.”
(Note that in the above, I am quoting the entire sentence from the newspaper and so placed quotation marks around it. The exact words of Senator Collins are set off with a SINGLE mark before and after (more commonly known an apostrophe that is used in contractions and to denote possession) because the quoted words are embedded in a phrase that already has quotation marks. It is incorrect to use quotation marks within other quotation marks so the embedded quote is set off with apostrophes).
Grammatically the newspaper sentence (“Collins told CNN…” is identical to “John told me…”) and precedes the quote. Pick up any American newspaper and you will see both variations – before and after the quoted words. “X said to. y …” also appears before and after the quoted words in texts and is especially common in oral speech. Perhaps Egawa misunderstood T&M. The part that you quoted from the latter has to do with the inversion of the subject and verb at the end of the sentence. Inversion does appear at the end of a sentence. However, the phrase, “x said to y …” or “x told y…” precedes or follows a quote in texts and in oral speech. It can only follow the quoted words when there is absolutely no confusion about whose words were being quoted.
For example, if Mary, Jane, and Sara are discussing an issue, it is necessary to identify the speaker, "Mary told the group, “…” If the previous sentence discussed what Sara said, then a following quote would assume to be Sara’s words. (Including the words, “said Sara,” or “Sara said” is too late in the sentence to prevent this confusion.) To clarify, the identity of the speaker thus occurs at the beginning of the sentence, “Mary told the group…” because there is a change in the subject/or a necessary clarification of who exactly is being quoted.
Again, context is critical as to what information is provided and in what order.
Thank you for your detailed comments, TraceyG. Your example sentences are informative and convincing.
“say + to + person addressed is possible, but this phrase must follow the direct statement; it cannot introduce it …”
Do you think that T&M’s statement is inaccurate? Or, has English changed lately?
Or, is it related to the differences between prescriptive grammar and descriptive grammar?
Prof Ford’s lawyer, Debra Katz, told NBC’s Today programme on Monday that “if it were not for the severe intoxication of Brett Kavanaugh, she [Prof Ford] would have been raped”.
Kavanaugh and accuser to testify in Senate
This seems to be an example of indirect speech, although quotation marks are used in the sentence. The statement is preceded by the word “that”.
Jeff Flake Suggests Delaying Kavanaugh Vote Amid Sexual Assault Allegations
Collins told CNN Sunday, “I’m going to be talking with my colleagues.” (1)(*1)
Collins told CNN Sunday that “I’m[She’s] going to be talking with my[her] colleagues.” (2) (*3)
Collins told CNN Sunday that She’s going to be talking with her colleagues. (3)(*2)
“I’m going to be talking with my colleagues,” Collins told CNN Sunday. (4)
Collins said to CNN Sunday, “I’m going to be talking with my colleagues.” (5)
Collins said to CNN Sunday that “I’m going to be talking with my colleagues.” (6)
Collins said to CNN Sunday that she’s going to be talking with her colleagues. (7)
“I’m going to be talking with my colleagues,” Collins said to CNN Sunday. (8)
According to the above description by T&M, the following sentence is possible but much less common than “Collins told CNN Sunday that She’s going to be talking with her colleagues. (3)”
Collins said to CNN Sunday that she’s going to be talking with her colleagues. (7)
“John said to me her story was true.”(1)
T&M would think that this sentence is possible but less common than “… told me …”
Earlier on Tuesday, the head of Honda Europe, Ian Howells, told the BBC that a no-deal Brexit would cost his company tens of millions of pounds.
Ian Howells told the BBC that a no-deal Brexit would cost his company tens of millions of pounds.
Ian Howells said to the BBC that a no-deal Brexit would cost his company tens of millions of pounds. (Possible. Less common than the above)
“A no-deal Brexit will cost my company tens of millions of pounds,” Ian Howells said to the BBC.
“A no-deal Brexit will cost my company tens of millions of pounds,” Ian Howells told the BBC.
Ian Howells told the BBC, “A no-deal Brexit will cost my company tens of millions of pounds.” (tell used with direct speech cannot introduce the direct statement.)
Ian Howells said, “A no-deal Brexit will cost my company tens of millions of pounds.”
“A no-deal Brexit will cost my company tens of millions of pounds” Ian Howells said.
“A no-deal Brexit will cost my company tens of millions of pounds” said Ian Howells.
“A no-deal Brexit will cost my company tens of millions of pounds” told the BBC Ian Howells.
Ian Howells said to the BBC, “A no-deal Brexit will cost my company tens of millions of pounds.” ( say + to + person addressed cannot introduce the direct statement.)
If I follow T&M’s description(or prescription), the above results will be deduced.
I think it’s important to remember that in ALL cases, context drives what is said, how it is said (including oral emphasis and body language), in what order, and how the words are interpreted. In many (and perhaps even most) informal conversations, when someone is recounting what another person has said, they are summarizing the content. It is not important to quote the exact words which is why indirect speech (with and without “that” to mark it) is more common in these contexts. However, if the exact words are critical, then the speaker will cite them and make it clear that they are doing so. In texts, whether direct speech is quoted, depends on the intent of the author – i.e., how precise he/she wants or needs to be when conveying what another person said.
In the example I gave from the Huffington Post, the article quoted Senator Collins’s initial response precisely because she is one of two women senators who have not always voted with their male GOP colleagues on critical legislative decisions. Whether the Senate would continue to hold a vote on the Supreme Court nominee in light of the latest allegations of sexual assault was a really big issue. Senator Collins’s decision could directly affect whether the nominee was confirmed this week or not and in turn whether there would be a significant Democratic backlash in the November elections. Collins’s precise words were being closely read by everyone in a fast developing story which is why the HP quoted her.
The story continued to develop during the day. Initially GOP leaders thought they could just make a few telephone calls and that would resolve the issue. At a GOP meeting last night, the senators apparently realized that they were mistaken and changed their minds, announcing that both the judge and the accuser would testify in public before the Senate Committee. (As I write, the accuser’s participation is NOT confirmed, despite the fact that some newspapers have written articles that make it seem like it has already been arranged.) In general, initial reporting of critical news is more likely to be quoted directly from sources since it is important to note who said what and when. Once information has been circulated a bit, the content is more commonly repeated as indirect speech because the information and its source are more widely known.
It should also be noted that whether a source is identified before or after a quote is also a stylistic decision. Most writers in English will not write a string of sentences in the same grammatical pattern: for example, "Collins said to CNN …, " “She said to CNN…,” “She also said to CNN… ,” because it is boring. Instead, they will alternate identifying her before the quote and after as well as use different verbs (declared, stated, elaborated, noted, etc. ) to make the prose more interesting stylistically.
In short, the issue is not whether indirect or direct speech is “common,” but rather what is the purpose of a speaker’s or author’s words in a specific context.
John told me her story was true.