reported speech questions with if

B1-B2 grammar

Reported speech: questions

Do you know how to report a question that somebody asked? Test what you know with interactive exercises and read the explanation to help you.

Look at these examples to see how we can tell someone what another person asked.

direct speech: 'Do you work from home?' he said. indirect speech: He asked me if I worked from home. direct speech: 'Who did you see?' she asked. indirect speech: She asked me who I'd seen. direct speech: 'Could you write that down for me?' she asked. indirect speech: She asked me to write it down.

Try this exercise to test your grammar.

Grammar B1-B2: Reported speech 2: 1

Read the explanation to learn more.

Grammar explanation

A reported question is when we tell someone what another person asked. To do this, we can use direct speech or indirect speech.

direct speech: 'Do you like working in sales?' he asked. indirect speech: He asked me if I liked working in sales.

In indirect speech, we change the question structure (e.g. Do you like ) to a statement structure (e.g. I like ).

We also often make changes to the tenses and other words in the same way as for reported statements (e.g. have done → had done , today → that day ). You can learn about these changes on the Reported speech 1 – statements page.

Yes / no questions

In yes / no questions, we use if or whether to report the question. If is more common.

'Are you going to the Helsinki conference?' He asked me if I was going to the Helsinki conference. 'Have you finished the project yet?' She asked us whether we'd finished the project yet.

Questions with a question word

In what , where , why , who , when or how questions, we use the question word to report the question.

'What time does the train leave?' He asked me what time the train left. 'Where did he go?' She asked where he went.

Reporting verbs

The most common reporting verb for questions is ask , but we can also use verbs like enquire , want to know or wonder .

'Did you bring your passports?' She wanted to know if they'd brought their passports. 'When could you get this done by?' He wondered when we could get it done by.

Offers, requests and suggestions

If the question is making an offer, request or suggestion, we can use a specific verb pattern instead, for example offer + infinitive, ask + infinitive or suggest + ing.

'Would you like me to help you?' He offered to help me. 'Can you hold this for me, please?' She asked me to hold it. 'Why don't we check with Joel?' She suggested checking with Joel.

Do this exercise to test your grammar again.

Grammar B1-B2: Reported speech 2: 2

Language level

Hello, dear teachers and team!

Could you please help me with the following:

She asked me "Does the Earth turn around the Sun?"

Does it have to be: "She asked me if the Earth TURNED around the Sun" ?

Do we have to change the question into the past form here as well?

2. She asked: "Was coffee originally green"?

Is "She asked me if the coffee HAD BEEN originally green" correct option? Can I leave WAS in an inderect speech here?

3. Is "She asked me if I knew if the Sun IS a star" or "She asked me if I knew if the Sun WAS / HAD BEEN a star" (if any) correct?

I'm very very grateful for your precious help and thank you very much for your answering this post in advance!!!

Hello howtosay_.

1. She asked me "Does the Earth turn around the Sun?" Does it have to be: "She asked me if the Earth TURNED around the Sun" ?

No, you can use the present here as well. The verb for this context would be 'go' rather than 'turn':

She asked me if the earth goes around the sun.

She asked me if the earth went around the sun.

Do we have to change the question into the past form here as well? 2. She asked: "Was coffee originally green"? Is "She asked me if the coffee HAD BEEN originally green" correct option? Can I leave WAS in an inderect speech here?

You can use either 'had been' or 'was' here. The adverb 'originally' removes any ambiguity.

3. Is "She asked me if I knew if the Sun IS a star" or "She asked me if I knew if the Sun WAS / HAD BEEN a star" (if any) correct?

You can use 'is' or 'was' here but not 'had been' as that would suggest the sun is not a star any more.

The LearnEnglish Team

She offered me to encourage studying English. She asked us if we could give her a hand.

He said, "I wished she had gone."

How to change this sentence into indirect speech?

Hello bhutuljee,

'He said that he wished she had gone.'

Best wishes, Kirk LearnEnglish team

He said, "I wish she went."

How to change the above sentence into indirect speech?

Hi bhutuljee,

It would be: "He said that he wished she had gone."

LearnEnglish team

He said , "She wished John would succeed."

This is the third sentence you've asked us to transform in this way. While we try to offer as much help as we can, we are not a service for giving answers to questions which may be from tests or homework so we do limit these kinds of answers. Perhaps having read the information on the page above you can try to transform the sentence yourself and we will tell you if you have done it correctly or not.

Hi, I hope my comment finds you well and fine. 1- reported question of "where did he go?"

Isn't it: She asked where he had gone?

https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/b1-b2-grammar/reported-…

2- how can I report poilte questions with( can I, May I) For example: She asked me" Can I borrow some money?"

Your reply will be highly appreciated.

Online courses

Group and one-to-one classes with expert teachers.

Learn English in your own time, at your own pace.

One-to-one sessions focused on a personal plan.

Get the score you need with private and group classes.

Conditionals and Reported Speech

Have you started learning conditionals ? You probably fear you’ll make a lot of mistakes with all those complicated rules, right? And to make things even more complicated, there’s the reported speech. How can you report conditional sentences?

There are numerous English language schools and programs in California that can help you with all the doubts you may have. But to truly master the conditionals and other aspects of the English language, you should rely on as many reliable resources as possible. So, keep reading this article as we explain how if-clauses are changed in reported speech.

Can we use "if" in reported speech?

“If” is a conjunction we use in indirect speech when we report yes/no questions.

Direct speech: Do you want to go to the cinema?

Indirect speech: He asked if I wanted to go to the cinema.

Also, if we want to report a conditional sentence, we’ll keep “if” in the reported speech too.

Direct speech: If it doesn’t rain, I’ll go for a walk.

Indirect speech: She said that if it didn’t rain, she’d go for a walk.

How do you change the if-clause in reported speech?

To see what tense and modal changes occur, let’s examine each type of conditional sentence separately.

Zero conditional in reported speech

The tense shift will occur only in instances when the condition is no longer valid. Otherwise, the tenses remain the same.

Mom: If dad gets angry, he always reads a newspaper in the living room and ignores everybody else.

Mom said that if dad gets angry, he always reads a newspaper in the living room and ignores everybody else. (Dad still does this.)

Mom said that if dad got angry, he always read a newspaper in the living room and ignored everybody else. (Dad doesn’t do this anymore. Mom just described his past habit.)

First conditional in reported speech

If we need to report a first conditional sentence, the following changes might take place.

Luke: If we hurry up, we’ll catch the bus .

Luke said that if we hurry up, we’ll catch the bus. (This information is still relevant. Luke and his interlocutor still have time to catch the bus.)

Luke said that if we hurried up, we’d catch the bus. (These reported words aren’t relevant anymore. The bus has already left. Note the tense and modal shift: the present simple becomes the past simple , and will becomes would .)

Second conditional in reported speech

The above tense and modal shifting rules apply to the second conditional too. If the condition is still relevant, no changes occur. However, if it’s outdated, the past simple becomes the past perfect , and would becomes would + have + past participle.

Sofia: If I had more money, I would buy a new car.

Sofia said that if she had more money, she would buy a new car. (Sofia still doesn’t have money, and consequently, she can’t buy a new car.)

Sofia said that if she had had more money, she would have bought a new car. (The speaker remembers Sofia’s words and wishes from the past. Maybe Sofia doesn’t have any money issues now.)

Third conditional in reported speech

When reporting third conditionals, there is no change in the verb form:

Tania: If I had seen him, I would have told him about the accident.

Tania said that if she had seen him, she would have told him about the accident .

Where to find the most reliable English language schools and programs in California?

Are you fed up with practicing English by yourself? Do you want to find a California-based school with a program specially tailored to satisfy your learning needs? The College of English Language is there for you. Our teachers boast many years of teaching experience under their belt, and successful teaching methods up their sleeves, and you'll soon notice a huge difference in your daily communication in English .

Visit us in one of our three locations in San Diego, Santa Monica , and Pacific Beach, and enjoy learning English in state-of-the-art classrooms with top teachers. We are waiting for you!

Reported Questions

Reported questions are one form of reported speech .

We usually introduce reported questions with the verb "ask":

He asked (me) if / whether ... (YES/NO questions)
He asked (me) why / when / where / what / how ... (question-word questions)

As with reported statements , we may need to change pronouns and tense (backshift) as well as time and place in reported questions.

But we also need to change the word order . After we report a question, it is no longer a question (and in writing there is no question mark). The word order is like that of a normal statement (subject-verb-object).

Reported YES/NO questions

We introduce reported YES/NO questions with ask + if :

Note that in the above example the reported question has no auxiliary "do". But there is pronoun change and backshift.

Note that we sometimes use "whether" instead of "if". The meaning is the same. "Whether" is a little more formal and more usual in writing:

They asked us if we wanted lunch.
They asked us whether we wanted lunch.

Reported question-word questions

We introduce reported question-word questions with ask + question word :

Note that in the above example the reported question has no auxiliary "do". But there is pronoun change and backshift.

YES/NO questions: Do you want tea?
Question Word questions: Where did you drink tea?
Choice questions: Do you prefer tea or coffee?

Look at these example sentences:

Contributor: Josef Essberger

Reported Speech: Rules, Examples, Exceptions

👉 Quiz 1 / Quiz 2

Advanced Grammar Course

What is reported speech?

“Reported speech” is when we talk about what somebody else said – for example:

Direct Speech: “I’ve been to London three times.”
Reported Speech: She said she’d been to London three times.

There are a lot of tricky little details to remember, but don’t worry, I’ll explain them and we’ll see lots of examples. The lesson will have three parts – we’ll start by looking at statements in reported speech, and then we’ll learn about some exceptions to the rules, and finally we’ll cover reported questions, requests, and commands.

Reported Speech: Rules, Examples, Exceptions Espresso English

So much of English grammar – like this topic, reported speech – can be confusing, hard to understand, and even harder to use correctly. I can help you learn grammar easily and use it confidently inside my Advanced English Grammar Course.

In this course, I will make even the most difficult parts of English grammar clear to you – and there are lots of opportunities for you to practice!

Backshift of Verb Tenses in Reported Speech

When we use reported speech, we often change the verb tense backwards in time. This can be called “backshift.”

Here are some examples in different verb tenses:

Reported Speech (Part 1) Quiz

Exceptions to backshift in reported speech.

Now that you know some of the reported speech rules about backshift, let’s learn some exceptions.

There are two situations in which we do NOT need to change the verb tense.

No backshift needed when the situation is still true

For example, if someone says “I have three children” (direct speech) then we would say “He said he has three children” because the situation continues to be true.

If I tell you “I live in the United States” (direct speech) then you could tell someone else “She said she lives in the United States” (that’s reported speech) because it is still true.

When the situation is still true, then we don’t need to backshift the verb.

He said he HAS three children

But when the situation is NOT still true, then we DO need to backshift the verb.

Imagine your friend says, “I have a headache.”

If you immediately go and talk to another friend, you could say, “She said she has a headache,” because the situation is still true
If you’re talking about that conversation a month after it happened, then you would say, “She said she had a headache,” because it’s no longer true.

No backshift needed when the situation is still in the future

We also don’t need to backshift to the verb when somebody said something about the future, and the event is still in the future.

Here’s an example:

On Monday, my friend said, “I ‘ll call you on Friday .”
“She said she ‘ll call me on Friday”, because Friday is still in the future from now.
It is also possible to say, “She said she ‘d (she would) call me on Friday.”
Both of them are correct, so the backshift in this case is optional.

Let’s look at a different situation:

On Monday, my friend said, “I ‘ll call you on Tuesday .”
“She said she ‘d call me on Tuesday.” I must backshift because the event is NOT still in the future.

Review: Reported Speech, Backshift, & Exceptions

Quick review:

Normally in reported speech we backshift the verb, we put it in a verb tense that’s a little bit further in the past.
when the situation is still true
when the situation is still in the future

Reported Requests, Orders, and Questions

Those were the rules for reported statements, just regular sentences.

What about reported speech for questions, requests, and orders?

For reported requests, we use “asked (someone) to do something”:

“Please make a copy of this report.” (direct speech)
She asked me to make a copy of the report. (reported speech)

For reported orders, we use “told (someone) to do something:”

“Go to the bank.” (direct speech)
“He told me to go to the bank.” (reported speech)

The main verb stays in the infinitive with “to”:

She asked me to make a copy of the report. She asked me make a copy of the report.
He told me to go to the bank. He told me go to the bank.

For yes/no questions, we use “asked if” and “wanted to know if” in reported speech.

“Are you coming to the party?” (direct)
He asked if I was coming to the party. (reported)
“Did you turn off the TV?” (direct)
She wanted to know if I had turned off the TV.” (reported)

The main verb changes and back shifts according to the rules and exceptions we learned earlier.

Notice that we don’t use do/does/did in the reported question:

She wanted to know did I turn off the TV.
She wanted to know if I had turned off the TV.

For other questions that are not yes/no questions, we use asked/wanted to know (without “if”):

“When was the company founded?” (direct)
She asked when the company was founded.” (reported)
“What kind of car do you drive?” (direct)
He wanted to know what kind of car I drive. (reported)

Again, notice that we don’t use do/does/did in reported questions:

“Where does he work?”
She wanted to know where does he work.
She wanted to know where he works.

Also, in questions with the verb “to be,” the word order changes in the reported question:

“Where were you born?” ([to be] + subject)
He asked where I was born. (subject + [to be])
He asked where was I born.

Reported Speech (Part 2) Quiz

Learn more about reported speech:

Reported speech: Perfect English Grammar
Reported speech: BJYU’s

If you want to take your English grammar to the next level, then my Advanced English Grammar Course is for you! It will help you master the details of the English language, with clear explanations of essential grammar topics, and lots of practice. I hope to see you inside!

I’ve got one last little exercise for you, and that is to write sentences using reported speech. Think about a conversation you’ve had in the past, and write about it – let’s see you put this into practice right away.

Master the details of English grammar:

More Espresso English Lessons:

About the author.

Shayna Oliveira

Shayna Oliveira is the founder of Espresso English, where you can improve your English fast - even if you don’t have much time to study. Millions of students are learning English from her clear, friendly, and practical lessons! Shayna is a CELTA-certified teacher with 10+ years of experience helping English learners become more fluent in her English courses.

Questions in Reported Speech

For pronouns, tenses and place / time expressions see statements in reported speech.

Besides, note that instead of ‚that‘ you use the interrogative. If there is no interrogative, use ‚whether‘ / ‚if‘ .

It is also important that you use an indirect question in reported speech, i.e. after the interrogative or ‚whether‘ / ‚if‘ you continue the sentence as if it were a statement (subject-verb etc.). The auxiliary verb ‚do‘ is not used in indirect questions.

Exercises on reported speech

English EFL

Reported speech

Reported questions

Reported questions.

When we report what people say, we usually change the tense of the verbs to reflect that we are reporting – not giving direct speech. This pattern is followed when we report questions and there are also other important changes between direct questions and reported questions.

Reported questions are one form of reported speech.

We usually introduce reported questions with the verb "ask":

He asked (me) if / whether ... (YES/NO questions)
He asked (me) why / when / where / what / how ... (question-word questions)

As with reported statements, we may need to change pronouns and tense (backshift) as well as time and place in reported questions.

Reported YES/NO questions

We introduce reported YES/NO questions with ask + if :

Note that in the above example the reported question has no auxiliary "do". But there is pronoun change and backshift.

Note that we sometimes use "whether" instead of "if". The meaning is the same. "Whether" is a little more formal and more usual in writing:

They asked us if we wanted lunch.
They asked us whether we wanted lunch.

Reported question-word questions

We introduce reported question-word questions with ask + question word :

Remember that there are basically three types of question:

YES/NO questions: Do you want tea?
Question Word questions: Where did you drink tea?
Choice questions: Do you prefer tea or coffee?

Reported choice questions have the same structure as Reported YES/NO questions. Questions with the verb BE always have a different structure: Was the tea cold? Where is my tea? You can see all these differences in the examples below.

Look at these example sentences:

Course Curriculum

Direct and indirect speech 15 mins
Tense changes in reported speech 20 mins
Changing time and place in reported speech 20 mins
Reported questions 20 mins
Reporting verbs 20 mins
Reporting orders and requests 15 mins
Reporting hopes, intentions and promises 20 mins

Reported Speech

Perfect english grammar.

Reported Statements

Here's how it works:

We use a 'reporting verb' like 'say' or 'tell'. ( Click here for more about using 'say' and 'tell' .) If this verb is in the present tense, it's easy. We just put 'she says' and then the sentence:

Direct speech: I like ice cream.
Reported speech: She says (that) she likes ice cream.

We don't need to change the tense, though probably we do need to change the 'person' from 'I' to 'she', for example. We also may need to change words like 'my' and 'your'. (As I'm sure you know, often, we can choose if we want to use 'that' or not in English. I've put it in brackets () to show that it's optional. It's exactly the same if you use 'that' or if you don't use 'that'.)

But , if the reporting verb is in the past tense, then usually we change the tenses in the reported speech:

Reported speech: She said (that) she liked ice cream.

* doesn't change.

Direct speech: The sky is blue.
Reported speech: She said (that) the sky is/was blue.

Click here for a mixed tense exercise about practise reported statements. Click here for a list of all the reported speech exercises.

Reported Questions

So now you have no problem with making reported speech from positive and negative sentences. But how about questions?

Direct speech: Where do you live?
Reported speech: She asked me where I lived.
Direct speech: Where is Julie?
Reported speech: She asked me where Julie was.
Direct speech: Do you like chocolate?
Reported speech: She asked me if I liked chocolate.

Click here to practise reported 'wh' questions. Click here to practise reported 'yes / no' questions. Reported Requests

There's more! What if someone asks you to do something (in a polite way)? For example:

Direct speech: Close the window, please
Or: Could you close the window please?
Or: Would you mind closing the window please?
Reported speech: She asked me to close the window.
Direct speech: Please don't be late.
Reported speech: She asked us not to be late.

Reported Orders

Direct speech: Sit down!
Reported speech: She told me to sit down.
Click here for an exercise to practise reported requests and orders.
Click here for an exercise about using 'say' and 'tell'.
Click here for a list of all the reported speech exercises.

Hello! I'm Seonaid! I'm here to help you understand grammar and speak correct, fluent English.

Reported Speech Questions

Questions With Question Words

Yes/no questions (with helping verb).

Reported speech

Speech can be direct and indirect, or reported.

When you express your thought orally or in writing, it is direct speech. We usually put it in quotes.

When you communicate what someone else said, it is reported speech.

Reported statements

Sue: "I am hungry."

Sue says (that) she is hungry.

To transfer a positive or a negative sentence to reported speech, we need two parts:

the main part (she says that... / he claims that... / they deny that...),
the dependent part which is the transformed direct speech.

Pay attention

In the reported speech, we must replace the pronouns. Otherwise, we won't keep the meaning.

Mary: "I am glad to help you!"

Mary says she is glad to help me . BUT NOT Mary says I am glad to help you.

You should also be careful with time indicators (today, now, next week etc.) not to lose the idea of the original direct statement.

The word that can be used or left out, both options are correct.

Backshift of tenses in reported speech

When we have a sentence that consists of the main and the dependent part we need to be careful with the verb tenses. The tense in the main part affects the tense in the dependent part. This is called backshifting.

If the main part is in the present simple (e.g., "she says...", "he tells me..."), the dependent part remains unchanged.

John: "I have just got up."

John says he has just got up. "Says" is the present simple → no backshifting

If the main part is in the past simple, we have to do the backshifting. Its basic principle is that the past simple in the main part "pushes" the tense of the dependent part one step back in time. This way we balance both parts of the sentence.

You can view the topic ' reported statements ' with an explanation and exercises.

Reported questions

If the direct question began with a question word (when, what, how, why and so on), then in the reported speech:

the sentence changes from question to positive, with a direct word order
we need to do the backshifting if we have the past simple in the main part

"Why did you leave the door open?" → She asked me why I had left the door open.

"Where have you been?" → She asked me where I had been.

If the direct question didn't have a question word (it was a yes/no question), we add the word "if" to transform it into reported speech. The rules of backshifting are the same.

"Will it rain tomorrow?" → They wanted to know if it would rain the next day.

"Can I lend your pen for a second?" → I asked if I could lend his pen for a second.

You can also view the topic ' reported questions ' for a detailed explanation and exercises.

Reported requests and demands

If we want to transform somebody's demand or request into reported speech, we say:

tell somebody to do something — for reported commands
ask somebody to do something — for reported requests

If the imperative was negative (don't go, don't do), we put "not" before "to": tell somebody not to do something.

"Do not cross the red line, please!" → The officer told us not to cross the red line.

"Could you put the flowers in the vase, please?" → She asked me to put the flowers in the vase.

You can also view the topic ' reported requests & demands ' for a detailed explanation and exercises.

Reported questions – Exercise

Task no. 2323.

Finish the sentences using Reported speech. Always change the tense, although it is sometimes not necessary.

Peter, "Did John clean the black shoes?" Peter asked me

Peter asked me if John had cleaned the black shoes .

Do you need help?

Reported questions in English

Christopher, "Do you want to dance?" Christopher asked me .
Betty, "When did you come?" Betty wanted to know .
Mark, "Has John arrived?" Mark asked me .
Ronald, "Where does Maria park her car?" Ronald asked me .
Elisabeth, "Did you watch the latest film?" Elisabeth asked me .
Mandy, "Can I help you?" Mandy wanted to know .
Andrew, "Will Mandy have lunch with Sue?" Andrew asked me .
Justin, "What are you doing?" Justin asked me .
Frank, "How much pocket money does Lisa get?" Frank wanted to know .
Anne, "Must I do the shopping?" Anne asked .
You are here:
Grammar Exercises
Reported Speech

Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Reported speech: indirect speech

Indirect speech focuses more on the content of what someone said rather than their exact words. In indirect speech , the structure of the reported clause depends on whether the speaker is reporting a statement, a question or a command.

Indirect speech: reporting statements

Indirect reports of statements consist of a reporting clause and a that -clause. We often omit that , especially in informal situations:

The pilot commented that the weather had been extremely bad as the plane came in to land. (The pilot’s words were: ‘The weather was extremely bad as the plane came in to land.’ )

I told my wife I didn’t want a party on my 50th birthday. ( that -clause without that ) (or I told my wife that I didn’t want a party on my 50th birthday .)

Indirect speech: reporting questions

Reporting yes-no questions and alternative questions.

Indirect reports of yes-no questions and questions with or consist of a reporting clause and a reported clause introduced by if or whether . If is more common than whether . The reported clause is in statement form (subject + verb), not question form:

She asked if [S] [V] I was Scottish. (original yes-no question: ‘Are you Scottish?’ )

The waiter asked whether [S] we [V] wanted a table near the window. (original yes-no question: ‘Do you want a table near the window? )

He asked me if [S] [V] I had come by train or by bus. (original alternative question: ‘Did you come by train or by bus?’ )

Questions: yes-no questions ( Are you feeling cold? )

Reporting wh -questions

Indirect reports of wh -questions consist of a reporting clause, and a reported clause beginning with a wh -word ( who, what, when, where, why, how ). We don’t use a question mark:

He asked me what I wanted.

Not: He asked me what I wanted?

The reported clause is in statement form (subject + verb), not question form:

She wanted to know who [S] we [V] had invited to the party.

Not: … who had we invited …

Who , whom and what

In indirect questions with who, whom and what , the wh- word may be the subject or the object of the reported clause:

I asked them who came to meet them at the airport. ( who is the subject of came ; original question: ‘Who came to meet you at the airport?’ )

He wondered what the repairs would cost. ( what is the object of cost ; original question: ‘What will the repairs cost?’ )

She asked us what [S] we [V] were doing . (original question: ‘What are you doing?’ )

Not: She asked us what were we doing?

When , where , why and how

We also use statement word order (subject + verb) with when , where, why and how :

I asked her when [S] it [V] had happened (original question: ‘When did it happen?’ ).

Not: I asked her when had it happened?

I asked her where [S] the bus station [V] was . (original question: ‘Where is the bus station?’ )

Not: I asked her where was the bus station?

The teacher asked them how [S] they [V] wanted to do the activity . (original question: ‘How do you want to do the activity?’ )

Not: The teacher asked them how did they want to do the activity?

Questions: wh- questions

Indirect speech: reporting commands

Indirect reports of commands consist of a reporting clause, and a reported clause beginning with a to -infinitive:

The General ordered the troops to advance . (original command: ‘Advance!’ )

The chairperson told him to sit down and to stop interrupting . (original command: ‘Sit down and stop interrupting!’ )

We also use a to -infinitive clause in indirect reports with other verbs that mean wanting or getting people to do something, for example, advise, encourage, warn :

They advised me to wait till the following day. (original statement: ‘You should wait till the following day.’ )

The guard warned us not to enter the area. (original statement: ‘You must not enter the area.’ )

Verbs followed by a to -infinitive

Indirect speech: present simple reporting verb

We can use the reporting verb in the present simple in indirect speech if the original words are still true or relevant at the time of reporting, or if the report is of something someone often says or repeats:

Sheila says they’re closing the motorway tomorrow for repairs.

Henry tells me he’s thinking of getting married next year.

Rupert says dogs shouldn’t be allowed on the beach. (Rupert probably often repeats this statement.)

Newspaper headlines

We often use the present simple in newspaper headlines. It makes the reported speech more dramatic:

JUDGE TELLS REPORTER TO LEAVE COURTROOM

PRIME MINISTER SAYS FAMILIES ARE TOP PRIORITY IN TAX REFORM

Present simple ( I work )

Reported speech

Reported speech: direct speech

Indirect speech: past continuous reporting verb

In indirect speech, we can use the past continuous form of the reporting verb (usually say or tell ). This happens mostly in conversation, when the speaker wants to focus on the content of the report, usually because it is interesting news or important information, or because it is a new topic in the conversation:

Rory was telling me the big cinema in James Street is going to close down. Is that true?

Alex was saying that book sales have gone up a lot this year thanks to the Internet.

‘Backshift’ refers to the changes we make to the original verbs in indirect speech because time has passed between the moment of speaking and the time of the report.

In these examples, the present ( am ) has become the past ( was ), the future ( will ) has become the future-in-the-past ( would ) and the past ( happened ) has become the past perfect ( had happened ). The tenses have ‘shifted’ or ‘moved back’ in time.

The past perfect does not shift back; it stays the same:

Modal verbs

Some, but not all, modal verbs ‘shift back’ in time and change in indirect speech.

We can use a perfect form with have + - ed form after modal verbs, especially where the report looks back to a hypothetical event in the past:

He said the noise might have been the postman delivering letters. (original statement: ‘The noise might be the postman delivering letters.’ )

He said he would have helped us if we’d needed a volunteer. (original statement: ‘I’ll help you if you need a volunteer’ or ‘I’d help you if you needed a volunteer.’ )

Used to and ought to do not change in indirect speech:

She said she used to live in Oxford. (original statement: ‘I used to live in Oxford.’ )

The guard warned us that we ought to leave immediately. (original statement: ‘You ought to leave immediately.’ )

No backshift

We don’t need to change the tense in indirect speech if what a person said is still true or relevant or has not happened yet. This often happens when someone talks about the future, or when someone uses the present simple, present continuous or present perfect in their original words:

He told me his brother works for an Italian company. (It is still true that his brother works for an Italian company.)

She said she ’s getting married next year. (For the speakers, the time at the moment of speaking is ‘this year’.)

He said he ’s finished painting the door. (He probably said it just a short time ago.)

She promised she ’ll help us. (The promise applies to the future.)

Indirect speech: changes to pronouns

Changes to personal pronouns in indirect reports depend on whether the person reporting the speech and the person(s) who said the original words are the same or different.

Indirect speech: changes to adverbs and demonstratives

We often change demonstratives ( this, that ) and adverbs of time and place ( now, here, today , etc.) because indirect speech happens at a later time than the original speech, and perhaps in a different place.

Typical changes to demonstratives, adverbs and adverbial expressions

Indirect speech: typical errors.

The word order in indirect reports of wh- questions is the same as statement word order (subject + verb), not question word order:

She always asks me where [S] [V] I am going .

Not: She always asks me where am I going .

We don’t use a question mark when reporting wh- questions:

I asked him what he was doing.

Not: I asked him what he was doing?

Word of the Day

veterinary surgeon

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

formal for vet

Dead ringers and peas in pods (Talking about similarities, Part 2)

Learn more with +Plus

Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
English–Dutch Dutch–English
English–French French–English
English–German German–English
English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
English–Italian Italian–English
English–Japanese Japanese–English
English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
English–Polish Polish–English
English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
English–Spanish Spanish–English
English–Swedish Swedish–English
Dictionary +Plus Word Lists

Add ${headword} to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

What is Reported Speech and how to use it? with Examples

Reported speech and indirect speech are two terms that refer to the same concept, which is the act of expressing what someone else has said. Reported speech is different from direct speech because it does not use the speaker's exact words. Instead, the reporting verb is used to introduce the reported speech, and the tense and pronouns are changed to reflect the shift in perspective. There are two main types of reported speech: statements and questions. 1. Reported Statements: In reported statements, the reporting verb is usually "said." The tense in the reported speech changes from the present simple to the past simple, and any pronouns referring to the speaker or listener are changed to reflect the shift in perspective. For example, "I am going to the store," becomes "He said that he was going to the store." 2. Reported Questions: In reported questions, the reporting verb is usually "asked." The tense in the reported speech changes from the present simple to the past simple, and the word order changes from a question to a statement. For example, "What time is it?" becomes "She asked what time it was." It's important to note that the tense shift in reported speech depends on the context and the time of the reported speech. Here are a few more examples: ● Direct speech: "I will call you later." Reported speech: He said that he would call me later. ● Direct speech: "Did you finish your homework?" Reported speech: She asked if I had finished my homework. ● Direct speech: "I love pizza." Reported speech: They said that they loved pizza.

When do we use reported speech?

Reported speech is used to report what someone else has said, thought, or written. It is often used in situations where you want to relate what someone else has said without quoting them directly. Reported speech can be used in a variety of contexts, such as in news reports, academic writing, and everyday conversation. Some common situations where reported speech is used include: News reports: Journalists often use reported speech to quote what someone said in an interview or press conference. Business and professional communication: In professional settings, reported speech can be used to summarize what was discussed in a meeting or to report feedback from a customer. Conversational English: In everyday conversations, reported speech is used to relate what someone else said. For example, "She told me that she was running late." Narration: In written narratives or storytelling, reported speech can be used to convey what a character said or thought.

How to make reported speech?

1. Change the pronouns and adverbs of time and place: In reported speech, you need to change the pronouns, adverbs of time and place to reflect the new speaker or point of view. Here's an example: Direct speech: "I'm going to the store now," she said. Reported speech: She said she was going to the store then. In this example, the pronoun "I" is changed to "she" and the adverb "now" is changed to "then." 2. Change the tense: In reported speech, you usually need to change the tense of the verb to reflect the change from direct to indirect speech. Here's an example: Direct speech: "I will meet you at the park tomorrow," he said. Reported speech: He said he would meet me at the park the next day. In this example, the present tense "will" is changed to the past tense "would." 3. Change reporting verbs: In reported speech, you can use different reporting verbs such as "say," "tell," "ask," or "inquire" depending on the context of the speech. Here's an example: Direct speech: "Did you finish your homework?" she asked. Reported speech: She asked if I had finished my homework. In this example, the reporting verb "asked" is changed to "said" and "did" is changed to "had." Overall, when making reported speech, it's important to pay attention to the verb tense and the changes in pronouns, adverbs, and reporting verbs to convey the original speaker's message accurately.

How do I change the pronouns and adverbs in reported speech?

1. Changing Pronouns: In reported speech, the pronouns in the original statement must be changed to reflect the perspective of the new speaker. Generally, the first person pronouns (I, me, my, mine, we, us, our, ours) are changed according to the subject of the reporting verb, while the second and third person pronouns (you, your, yours, he, him, his, she, her, hers, it, its, they, them, their, theirs) are changed according to the object of the reporting verb. For example: Direct speech: "I love chocolate." Reported speech: She said she loved chocolate. Direct speech: "You should study harder." Reported speech: He advised me to study harder. Direct speech: "She is reading a book." Reported speech: They noticed that she was reading a book. 2. Changing Adverbs: In reported speech, the adverbs and adverbial phrases that indicate time or place may need to be changed to reflect the perspective of the new speaker. For example: Direct speech: "I'm going to the cinema tonight." Reported speech: She said she was going to the cinema that night. Direct speech: "He is here." Reported speech: She said he was there. Note that the adverb "now" usually changes to "then" or is omitted altogether in reported speech, depending on the context. It's important to keep in mind that the changes made to pronouns and adverbs in reported speech depend on the context and the perspective of the new speaker. With practice, you can become more comfortable with making these changes in reported speech.

How do I change the tense in reported speech?

In reported speech, the tense of the reported verb usually changes to reflect the change from direct to indirect speech. Here are some guidelines on how to change the tense in reported speech: Present simple in direct speech changes to past simple in reported speech. For example: Direct speech: "I like pizza." Reported speech: She said she liked pizza. Present continuous in direct speech changes to past continuous in reported speech. For example: Direct speech: "I am studying for my exam." Reported speech: He said he was studying for his exam. Present perfect in direct speech changes to past perfect in reported speech. For example: Direct speech: "I have finished my work." Reported speech: She said she had finished her work. Past simple in direct speech changes to past perfect in reported speech. For example: Direct speech: "I visited my grandparents last weekend." Reported speech: She said she had visited her grandparents the previous weekend. Will in direct speech changes to would in reported speech. For example: Direct speech: "I will help you with your project." Reported speech: He said he would help me with my project. Can in direct speech changes to could in reported speech. For example: Direct speech: "I can speak French." Reported speech: She said she could speak French. Remember that the tense changes in reported speech depend on the tense of the verb in the direct speech, and the tense you use in reported speech should match the time frame of the new speaker's perspective. With practice, you can become more comfortable with changing the tense in reported speech.

Do I always need to use a reporting verb in reported speech?

No, you do not always need to use a reporting verb in reported speech. However, using a reporting verb can help to clarify who is speaking and add more context to the reported speech. In some cases, the reported speech can be introduced by phrases such as "I heard that" or "It seems that" without using a reporting verb. For example: Direct speech: "I'm going to the cinema tonight." Reported speech with a reporting verb: She said she was going to the cinema tonight. Reported speech without a reporting verb: It seems that she's going to the cinema tonight. However, it's important to note that using a reporting verb can help to make the reported speech more formal and accurate. When using reported speech in academic writing or journalism, it's generally recommended to use a reporting verb to make the reporting more clear and credible. Some common reporting verbs include say, tell, explain, ask, suggest, and advise. For example: Direct speech: "I think we should invest in renewable energy." Reported speech with a reporting verb: She suggested that they invest in renewable energy. Overall, while using a reporting verb is not always required, it can be helpful to make the reported speech more clear and accurate.

How to use reported speech to report questions and commands?

1. Reporting Questions: When reporting questions, you need to use an introductory phrase such as "asked" or "wondered" followed by the question word (if applicable), subject, and verb. You also need to change the word order to make it a statement. Here's an example: Direct speech: "What time is the meeting?" Reported speech: She asked what time the meeting was. Note that the question mark is not used in reported speech. 2. Reporting Commands: When reporting commands, you need to use an introductory phrase such as "ordered" or "told" followed by the person, to + infinitive, and any additional information. Here's an example: Direct speech: "Clean your room!" Reported speech: She ordered me to clean my room. Note that the exclamation mark is not used in reported speech. In both cases, the tense of the reported verb should be changed accordingly. For example, present simple changes to past simple, and future changes to conditional. Here are some examples: Direct speech: "Will you go to the party with me?" Reported speech: She asked if I would go to the party with her. Direct speech: "Please bring me a glass of water." Reported speech: She requested that I bring her a glass of water. Remember that when using reported speech to report questions and commands, the introductory phrases and verb tenses are important to convey the intended meaning accurately.

How to make questions in reported speech?

To make questions in reported speech, you need to use an introductory phrase such as "asked" or "wondered" followed by the question word (if applicable), subject, and verb. You also need to change the word order to make it a statement. Here are the steps to make questions in reported speech: Identify the reporting verb: The first step is to identify the reporting verb in the sentence. Common reporting verbs used to report questions include "asked," "inquired," "wondered," and "wanted to know." Change the tense and pronouns: Next, you need to change the tense and pronouns in the sentence to reflect the shift from direct to reported speech. The tense of the verb is usually shifted back one tense (e.g. from present simple to past simple) in reported speech. The pronouns should also be changed as necessary to reflect the shift in perspective from the original speaker to the reporting speaker. Use an appropriate question word: If the original question contained a question word (e.g. who, what, where, when, why, how), you should use the same question word in the reported question. If the original question did not contain a question word, you can use "if" or "whether" to introduce the reported question. Change the word order: In reported speech, the word order of the question changes from the inverted form to a normal statement form. The subject usually comes before the verb, unless the original question started with a question word. Here are some examples of reported questions: Direct speech: "What time is the meeting?" Reported speech: She asked what time the meeting was. Direct speech: "Did you finish your homework?" Reported speech: He wanted to know if I had finished my homework. Direct speech: "Where are you going?" Reported speech: She wondered where I was going. Remember that when making questions in reported speech, the introductory phrases and verb tenses are important to convey the intended meaning accurately. Here you can find more examples of direct and indirect questions

What is the difference between reported speech an indirect speech?

In reported or indirect speech, you are retelling or reporting what someone said using your own words. The tense of the reported speech is usually shifted back one tense from the tense used in the original statement. For example, if someone said, "I am going to the store," in reported speech you would say, "He/she said that he/she was going to the store." The main difference between reported speech and indirect speech is that reported speech usually refers to spoken language, while indirect speech can refer to both spoken and written language. Additionally, indirect speech is a broader term that includes reported speech as well as other ways of expressing what someone else has said, such as paraphrasing or summarizing.

Examples of direct speech to reported

1. Direct speech: "I am hungry," she said. Reported speech: She said she was hungry. 2. Direct speech: "Can you pass the salt, please?" he asked. Reported speech: He asked her to pass the salt. 3. Direct speech: "I will meet you at the cinema," he said. Reported speech: He said he would meet her at the cinema. 4. Direct speech: "I have been working on this project for hours," she said. Reported speech: She said she had been working on the project for hours. 5. Direct speech: "What time does the train leave?" he asked. Reported speech: He asked what time the train left. 6. Direct speech: "I love playing the piano," she said. Reported speech: She said she loved playing the piano. 7. Direct speech: "I am going to the grocery store," he said. Reported speech: He said he was going to the grocery store. 8. Direct speech: "Did you finish your homework?" the teacher asked. Reported speech: The teacher asked if he had finished his homework. 9. Direct speech: "I want to go to the beach," she said. Reported speech: She said she wanted to go to the beach. 10. Direct speech: "Do you need help with that?" he asked. Reported speech: He asked if she needed help with that. 11. Direct speech: "I can't come to the party," he said. Reported speech: He said he couldn't come to the party. 12. Direct speech: "Please don't leave me," she said. Reported speech: She begged him not to leave her. 13. Direct speech: "I have never been to London before," he said. Reported speech: He said he had never been to London before. 14. Direct speech: "Where did you put my phone?" she asked. Reported speech: She asked where she had put her phone. 15. Direct speech: "I'm sorry for being late," he said. Reported speech: He apologized for being late. 16. Direct speech: "I need some help with this math problem," she said. Reported speech: She said she needed some help with the math problem. 17. Direct speech: "I am going to study abroad next year," he said. Reported speech: He said he was going to study abroad the following year. 18. Direct speech: "Can you give me a ride to the airport?" she asked. Reported speech: She asked him to give her a ride to the airport. 19. Direct speech: "I don't know how to fix this," he said. Reported speech: He said he didn't know how to fix it. 20. Direct speech: "I hate it when it rains," she said. Reported speech: She said she hated it when it rained.

What is Direct and Indirect Speech?

Direct and indirect speech are two different ways of reporting spoken or written language. Let's delve into the details and provide some examples. Click here to read more

Fluent English Grammar

Created by Fluent English Grammar

Linguapress.com
English grammar
Advanced reading
Intermediate reading
Language games and puzzles
Linguapress ›
English grammar

Reported or indirect questions in English

reported questions and verb tenses in english , preliminary points:.

a) The main thing to remember is that in reported interrogatives, there is no inversion of subject and verb.
b) Reported speech can be introduced by a lot of different verbs, but most commonly by expressions such as " He asked...... , I wonder..... " etc.
When there is no question word (as in model M3 ), indirect questions are introduced by if or whether .

1. Reporting the present: simultaneous reporting.

2. reporting the past: deferred reporting., 2.1. reporting the past from the present ..

2.2. Reporting what was the future in the original question.

Today that day
Tomorrow the next day, the following day
Yesterday the day before, the previous day
Now then, at that moment ,
In five minutes' (etc) time five minutes (etc.) later
Here there

Parts of Speech and Sentence Structure
Sentence Structure – Forms of Sentences
Indirect Speech
Indirect Questions (if, whether)

To use all the features of this portal, please activate Javascript in your browser.

To use all the features of this portal, please use Internet Explorer Version 6 or higher.

Indirect Questions

Mark and his granny.

When he rang the bell at her door, she asked from the inside: "Who is there?"
Mark answered : "It's me, Mark!" And he asked : "Do you want to let me in?" She opened the door and hugged him.
"Are you hungry?", she asked . He replied : "I am starving." They went inside. She had cooked a huge meal.
"Do you like potatoes and fish?", she asked .
"I like fish", said Mark. "I do not really like potatoes." His grandmother sighed.
"Would you prefer fries?", she asked unwillingly.
"I would love that!", Mark screamed .
When he rang the bell at her door, she asked from the inside who was there.
Mark answered that it was him and he asked whether she wanted to let him in. She opened the door and hugged him.
She asked whether he was hungry and he replied that he was starving. They went inside. She had cooked a huge meal.
She asked him whether he liked fish and potatoes.
Mark answered that he liked fish but that he did not really like potatoes. His grandmother sighed.
Unwillingly she asked him whether he preferred fries.
Mark screamed that he would love that.

show sample solution

Learn more ...

Ohio State faculty adviser: Student protest arrests show start of 'A wave of repression'

Two Ohio State University students were arrested Tuesday and charged with misdemeanor criminal trespassing during an on-campus demonstration.

Ohio State University police officers arrested the students at Meiling Hall, a classroom and administrative building near the Wexner Medical Center, according to police reports. About 60 individuals had gathered to protest the Hamas-Israel war in Gaza and fossil fuel divestment.

The Dispatch is not naming the students, as they have not been charged with a felony. One student, a sociology major, is a member of Ohio Youth for Climate Justice, and the other is a journalism major and a member of OSU's Students for Justice in Palestine chapter.

Police said the students "failed to leave the area and failed to stop disrupting" an event being held in the building's lobby.

I am no longer a proud Buckeye. Ohio State president using dog whistle to muzzle free speech

A video posted by student organizers shows a group of protesters gathered on the steps outside Meiling Hall wearing pro-Palestine shirts and chanting "Free Palestine." In the video, an OSU police officer walks down the steps, points at a student, turns back to give a thumbs up to other officers before three officers walked the individual up the steps and into custody.

Another video showed about a dozen police officers and university officials blocking the building's entrance and pushing a student after officers pulled the student inside the building's safety vestibule.

What happened at Tuesday's protest at Ohio State?

Isabella Guinigundo — an Ohio State fourth-year student and communications director of Ohio Youth for Climate Justice, a statewide organization that advocates for environmental justice — said the protest was organized by several groups. It was meant to be Ohio Youth for Climate Justice's last event of the semester.

Guinigundo said students initially gathered at Mirror Lake and were met by Office of Student Life employees and OSU police officers, who warned them that there would be "no tolerance for amplified noise" because it was Reading Day, a day on the academic calendar before exams begin for students to study. They were also told they could only chant outdoors, she said.

Guinigundo said the students chose not to use the megaphones and loud speakers they brought to comply with the rules. The group eventually marched to Meiling Hall, where the OSU Wexner Medical Center Board of Trustees' Quality and Professional Affairs committee was meeting.

The group held its own "People's Board Meeting" outside the building, Guinigundo said. At some point, she said police officers told the group it could be heard from inside the building's lobby. One was arrested shortly after the warning.

Ben Johnson, a university spokesman, said the students received "multiple warnings" before their arrest that they were being too loud. The two students who were arrested were individuals who "continued at the same volume" after being warned, he said.

"Well established university policy prohibits disrupting the university’s mission, administrative functions and campus-life activities. This includes demonstrations that disrupt classroom and administrative buildings," Johnson said.

Disruptive noise, according to the university's space rules, includes, but is not limited to: amplified sound, other loud noise that is audible more than 50 feet from the source of the sound and/or noise occurring during the restricted hours above.

Guinigundo said most protesters took a step back from the doors to regroup when police arrested another student.

Johnson said it was "only when warnings weren't heeded" that students were arrested.

"Ohio State has an unwavering commitment to freedom of speech and took this action in alignment with our space use rules to provide for the orderly conduct of university business," Johnson said.

Ohio State students, faculty say police 'wanted to make an example'

Sumaya Hamadmad, an Ohio State research scientist, attended the protest as a member of the Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine group. She said students complied with all rules given by university officials. They were so quiet at times, she said, she could barely hear what was being said to the group.

"You could hear more noise on a regular school day," she said. "This was meant to intimidate students."

Guinigundo agreed.

"OSUPD wanted to make an example out of our organizations," she said.

Pranav Jani, faculty adviser for Students for Justice in Palestine and an associate professor of English at Ohio State, said he believes "Ohio State has been laying the groundwork for these arrests for a long time."

"A wave of repression is starting, and we can expect it to get worse," he said.

Jani said Ohio State has suspended a student group, charged individual students under the university's code of conduct for nonviolent protests and "has basically accused students of inciting violence and hate." He said he's been in meetings with administrators and students for weeks, "and while private sympathies are expressed, actions and arrests speak louder than words."

Hamadmad said she is worried that universities calling police officers on their own students, like what is happening with student protesters at Columbia University , is setting dangerous precedent.

"Ohio State, like universities around the country, has failed to protect or even show basic empathy for their Palestinian and pro-Palestinian students and faculty, which include Muslim, Arab, Jewish, Christian and many others," Jani said. "It’s a damn shame."

Ohio State president said university will 'continue to prioritize safety'

The arrests come a day after Ohio State President Ted Carter said in an end-of-the-semester email that he respects students' right to freedom of speech, but "will not compromise" on matters of safety.

Ohio State will "continue to prioritize safety," Carter said in the email, including having university police officers and trained staff on-site for demonstrations, and enforcing space rules that prohibit "intentional disruptions of university events, classes, exams or programming, including commencement."

OSU's spring commencement is May 5 at Ohio Stadium.

Johnson said he is "cautiously optimistic that people will by and large be respectful" at protests as the semester draws to a close.

Guinigundo said protesters appreciate the support they've received, but she hopes people remember the reason they are protesting in the first place.

"Our hearts should be with Gaza," she said.

Sheridan Hendrix is a higher education reporter for The Columbus Dispatch. Sign up for Extra Credit, her education newsletter, here .

[email protected]

@sheridan120

Justices Seem Ready to Limit the 2020 Election Case Against Trump

Such a ruling in the case, on whether the former president is immune from prosecution, would probably send it back to a lower court and could delay any trial until after the November election.

Share full article

Demonstrators holding signs. The Supreme Court is in the background.

Charlie Savage and Alan Feuer

Charlie Savage reported from Washington, and Alan Feuer from New York.

Here are four takeaways from the Supreme Court hearing on Trump’s claim to immunity.

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Thursday about Donald J. Trump’s claim that the federal charges accusing him of plotting to overturn the 2020 election must be thrown out because he is immune from being prosecuted for any official act he took as president.

Here are some takeaways.

Several justices seemed to want to define some level of official act as immune.

Although Mr. Trump’s claim of near-absolute immunity was seen as a long shot intended primarily to slow the proceedings, several members of the Republican-appointed majority seemed to indicate that some immunity was needed. Some of them expressed worry about the long-term consequences of leaving future former presidents open to prosecution for their official actions.

Among others, Justice Brett Kavanaugh compared the threat of prosecution for official acts to how a series of presidents were “hampered” by independent counsel investigations, criticizing a 1984 ruling that upheld a now-defunct law creating such prosecutors as one of the Supreme Court’s biggest mistakes. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. criticized an appeals court ruling rejecting immunity for Mr. Trump, saying he was concerned that it “did not get into a focused consideration of what acts we are talking about or what documents are talking about.”

“It’s a serious constitutional question whether a statute can be applied to the president’s official acts. So wouldn’t you always interpret the statute not to apply to the president, even under your formulation, unless Congress had spoken with some clarity?” “I don’t think across the board that as serious constitutional question exists on applying any criminal statute to the president.” “The problem is the vague statute — obstruction and 371, conspiracy to defraud the United States can be used against a lot of presidential activities historically with a creative prosecutor who wants to go after a president.” “I think that the question about the risk is very serious. And obviously it is a question that this court has to evaluate. For the executive branch, our view is that there is a balanced protection that better serves the interests of the Constitution that incorporates both accountability and protection for the president.”

The Democrat-appointed justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — asked questions indicating greater concern about opening the door for presidents to commit official crimes with impunity.

“This is what you’re asking us to say, which is that a president is entitled not to make a mistake — but more than that, a president is entitled for total personal gain to use the trappings of his office. That’s what you’re trying to get us to hold — without facing criminal liability.” “Your honor, I would say three things in response to that. First, the doctrine that immunity does not turn on the allegedly improper motivation or purpose is something that this court has reaffirmed in at least nine or 10 —” “That’s absolute immunity. But qualified immunity does say that whatever act you take has to be within what a reasonable person would do. I’m having a hard time thinking that creating false documents, that submitting false documents, that ordering the assassination of a rival, that accepting a bribe, and countless other laws that could be broken for personal gain, that anyone would say that it would be reasonable for a president or any public official to do that.”

The arguments signaled further delay and complications for a Trump trial.

If the Supreme Court does place limits on the ability of prosecutors to charge Mr. Trump over his official actions, it could alter the shape of his trial.

A decision to send all or part of the case back to the lower courts could further slow progress toward a trial, increasing the odds that it does not start before Election Day.

Of the matters listed in the indictment, some — like working with private lawyers to gin up slates of fraudulent electors — seem like the private actions of a candidate. Others — like pressuring the Justice Department and Vice President Mike Pence to do things — seem more like official acts he took in his role as president.

At one point, Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that prosecutors could simply drop Mr. Trump’s arguably official actions from their case and proceed to a swift trial focused only on his private actions. And D. John Sauer, the lawyer for Mr. Trump, told the court that no evidence of Mr. Trump’s official actions should be allowed into the trial.

But Michael R. Dreeben, a Justice Department lawyer arguing on behalf of the special counsel’s office, said the indictment laid out an “integrated conspiracy” in which Mr. Trump took the official actions to bolster the chances that his other efforts to overturn the election would succeed.

He argued that even if the court holds that Mr. Trump has immunity from liability for his official actions, prosecutors should still be allowed to present evidence about them to the jury because the actions are relevant to assessing his larger knowledge and intentions — just as speech that is protected by the First Amendment can still be used as evidence in a conspiracy case.

The hearing revolved around two very different ways of looking at the issue.

Looming over the hearing was a sweeping moral question: What effect might executive immunity have on the future of American politics?

Not surprisingly, the two sides saw things very differently.

Mr. Sauer claimed that without immunity, all presidents would be paralyzed by the knowledge that once they were out of office, they could face an onslaught of charges from their rivals based on the tough calls they had to make while in power. He pictured a dystopian world of ceaseless tit-for-tat political prosecutions that would destroy the “presidency as we know it.”

If a president can be charged, put on trial and imprisoned for his most controversial decisions as soon as he leaves office, that looming threat will distort the president’s decision-making precisely when bold and fearless action is most needed. Every current president will face de facto blackmail and extortion by his political rivals while he is still in office. The implications of the court’s decision here extend far beyond the facts of this case. Could President George W. Bush have been sent to prison for obstructing an official proceeding or allegedly lying to Congress to induce war in Iraq? Could President Obama be charged with murder for killing U.S. citizens abroad by drone strike? Could President Biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policies? The answer to all these questions is no.

Envisioning the opposite scenario, Mr. Dreeben worried that any form of blanket immunity would place presidents entirely outside of the rule of law and encourage them to commit crimes, including “bribery, treason, sedition, even murder,” with impunity.

“The framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong,” he said.

This court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official. Petitioner, however, claims that a former president has permanent criminal immunity for his official acts unless he was first impeached and convicted. His novel theory would immunize former presidents for criminal liability; for bribery, treason, sedition, murder and here, conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power. Such presidential immunity has no foundation in the Constitution. The framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong.

Both sides found advocates for their positions on the court.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. clearly seemed worried that without some form of criminal immunity, former presidents would be vulnerable to partisan warfare as their successors used the courts to go after them once they were out of office. And that, he added, could lead to endless cycles of retribution that would be a risk to “stable, democratic society.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared more concerned that if presidents were in fact shielded by immunity, they would be unbounded by the law and could turn the Oval Office into what she described as “the seat of criminality.”

If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes, I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into the seat of criminal activity in this country? If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office? It’s right now the fact that we’re having this debate, because O.L.C. has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents from the beginning of time have understood that that’s a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning. But once we say no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want, I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.

What happens next?

There did not seem to be a lot of urgency among the justices — especially the conservative ones — to ensure that the immunity question was resolved quickly. That left open the possibility that Mr. Trump could avoid being tried on charges of plotting to overturn the last election until well after voters went to the polls to decide whether to choose him as president in this election.

And if he is elected, any trial could be put off while he is in office, or he could order the charges against him dropped.

It could take some time for the court to do its own analysis of what presidential acts should qualify for the protections of immunity. And even if the justices determine that at least some of the allegations against Mr. Trump are fair game for prosecution, if they do not issue a ruling until late June or early July, it could be difficult to hold a trial before November.

That would become all but impossible if the court took a different route and sent the analysis back to the trial judge, Tanya S. Chutkan. If Judge Chutkan were ordered to hold further hearings on which of the indictment’s numerous allegations were official acts of Mr. Trump’s presidency and which were private acts he took as a candidate for office, the process could take months and last well into 2025.

Aishvarya Kavi

Reporting from Washington

A spectacle outside the Supreme Court for Trump’s defenders and detractors.

Just as the Supreme Court began considering on Thursday morning whether former President Donald J. Trump was entitled to absolute immunity, rap music started blaring outside the court.

The lyrics, laced with expletives, denounced Mr. Trump, and several dozen demonstrators began chanting, “Trump is not above the law!”

Mr. Trump was not in Washington on Thursday morning — in fact, he was in another courtroom , in New York. But the spectacle that pierced the relative tranquillity outside the court was typical of events that involve him: demonstrations, homemade signs, police, news media, and lots and lots of curious onlookers.

One man, Stephen Parlato, a retired mental health counselor from Boulder, Colo., held a roughly 6-foot-long sign with a blown-up photo of Mr. Trump scowling that read, “Toxic loser.” The back of the sign featured the famous painting by Cassius Marcellus Coolidge of dogs playing poker, adorned with the words, “Faith erodes … in a court with no binding ethics code.” He made the sign at FedEx, he said.

The Supreme Court’s decision to even hear the case, which has delayed Mr. Trump’s election interference trial , was “absurd,” he said.

“I’m a child of the late ’60s and early ’70s and the Vietnam War,” said Mr. Parlato, dressed in a leather jacket and cowboy hat. “I remember protesting that while in high school. But this is very different. I’m here because I’m terrified of the possibility of a second Trump presidency.”

Inside the court, Jack Smith sat to the far right of the lawyer arguing on behalf of his team of prosecutors, Michael R. Dreeben, a leading expert in criminal law who has worked for another special counsel who investigated Mr. Trump, Robert S. Mueller III.

Among those in attendance were Jane Sullivan Roberts, who is married to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Ashley Estes Kavanaugh, who is married to Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

In an orderly line outside along the side of the court, people were calmly waiting to listen to the arguments from the court’s public gallery. More than 100 people, many of them supporters of Mr. Trump, were in line as of 8:30 a.m. Reagan Pendarvis, 19, who had been waiting there since the middle of the night, said the first person in line had gotten there more than a day before the arguments began.

Mr. Pendarvis, a sophomore at the University of California, San Diego who is living in Washington for the spring semester, was wearing a black suit and bright red bow tie. He said he had been struggling to keep warm since he took his place in line.

Mr. Pendarvis, a supporter of Mr. Trump, said he thought that the cases brought against the former president were an uneven application of the law.

“I think a lot of the cases, especially that happen for Donald Trump, don’t really happen for Democrats on the other side,” he said. “That’s just my take on it.”

David Bolls, 42, and his brother, Jonathan, 43, both of Springfield, Va., also in line for the arguments, also contended that the prosecutions against Mr. Trump were an abuse of judicial power.

“For me, I want to see an even application of justice,” David Bolls said.

For others in line, the Supreme Court’s deliberations were not the main draw. Ellen Murphy, a longtime Washington resident, was trying to sell buttons she designs, though she acknowledged that it was unlikely she would be allowed in with all of her merchandise.

Dozens of the buttons, which said, “Immunize democracy now” and “Trump is toast” over a toaster with two slices of bread, were pinned to a green apron she was wearing.

“We lose our democracy,” Ms. Murphy said, “if the president can do whatever he wants just because he’s president.”

Eileen Sullivan contributed reporting.

Adam Liptak

What’s next: Much will turn on how quickly the court acts.

The justices heard arguments in the immunity case at a special session, the day after what had been the last scheduled argument of its term. Arguments heard in late April almost always yield decisions near the end of the court’s term, in late June or early July.

But a ruling in early summer, even if it categorically rejected Mr. Trump’s position, would make it hard to complete his trial before the election. Should Mr. Trump win at the polls, there is every reason to think he would scuttle the prosecution.

In cases that directly affected elections — in which the mechanisms of voting were at issue — the court has sometimes acted with unusual speed.

In 2000, in Bush v. Gore, the court issued its decision handing the presidency to George W. Bush the day after the justices heard arguments.

In a recent case concerning Mr. Trump’s eligibility to appear on Colorado’s primary ballot, the justices moved more slowly, but still at a relatively brisk pace. The court granted Mr. Trump’s petition seeking review just two days after he filed it , scheduled arguments for about a month later and issued its decision in his favor about a month after that.

In United States v. Nixon, the 1974 decision that ordered President Richard M. Nixon to comply with a subpoena for audiotapes of conversations with aides in the White House, the court also moved quickly , granting the special prosecutor’s request to bypass the appeals court a week after it was filed.

The court heard arguments about five weeks later — compared with some eight weeks in Mr. Trump’s immunity case. It issued its decision 16 days after the argument , and the trial was not delayed.

Abbie VanSickle

The oral argument lasted nearly three hours, as the justices tangled with a lawyer for the former president and a Justice Department lawyer. A majority of the justices appeared skeptical of the idea of sweeping presidential immunity. However, several of them suggested an interest in drawing out what actions may be immune and what may not — a move that could delay the former president’s trial if the Supreme Court asks a lower court to revisit the issues.

Many of the justices seemed to be considering the idea that presidents should enjoy some form of protection against criminal prosecution. The devil, however, will be in the details: How should that protection extend?

And that question will have profound relevance not only for future presidents, but much more immediately for Donald Trump. The court could decide to draw those rules itself in a broad way for history. Or it could send this case back to a lower court to set the rules of what form immunity could take. If the case is sent back for further proceedings, it could have a dramatic effect on the timing of Trump’s trial, pushing it well past the election in November.

Looking back, one of the main points of discussion turned on the question of which situation would be worse: a world in which presidents, shorn of any legal protections against prosecution, were ceaselessly pursued in the courts by their rivals in a never-ending cycle of political retribution, or allowing presidents to be unbounded by criminal law and permitted to do whatever they wanted with impunity.

Charlie Savage

Sauer, Trump’s attorney, declines to offer a rebuttal. The argument is over.

If the court finds that there is some immunity for official actions, one of the most important questions will be whether prosecutors can still present evidence to the jury of Trump’s official actions (like pressuring the Justice Department and Vice President Mike Pence to do certain things) as evidence that helps illuminate Trump’s knowledge and intent for his private acts as a candidate. Dreeben says the jury needs to understand the whole “integrated conspiracy” but prosecutors would accept a jury instruction in which the judge would say they cannot impose liability for the official actions but may consider them as evidence of his knowledge and intent for the other actions. That’s how courts handle protected speech that is evidence to a larger conspiracy, he notes.

Justice Barrett picks up the question of timing again. She suggests that if prosecutors want to take Trump quickly to trial, they could simply drop those parts of the indictment that seem to be his official acts as president and proceed with only those parts of the indictment that reflect Trump’s private actions taken as a candidate for office. Dreeben is not wild about that idea.

Dreeben suggests that allegations in the “private acts bucket,” as Justice Jackson just called it, would include things like the scheme to create fake electors and the way in which Trump fomented a mob of his supporters to violently attack the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Justice Barrett seems to signal that she is less likely to find that presidents have blanket immunity for their official acts. When Dreeben says the system needs to balance the effective functioning of the presidency and accountability for a former president under the rule of law, and the existing system does that pretty well or maybe needs a few ancillary rules but that is different from the “radical proposal” put forward by Trump’s legal team, she says: “I agree.”

Dreeben, in a balancing act that seems to acknowledge that the court is looking for some form of criminal immunity for presidents, says he is trying to do two things at once, neither of them easy. He wants to design a system to find some rules that preserve the “effective functioning of the presidency” but that still allows for “accountability” if presidents violated the law.

Kavanaugh asks Dreeben about Obama’s drone strike that killed an American citizen suspected of terrorism, Anwar al-Awlaki, which Trump’s lawyer invoked in his opening. Dreeben notes that the Office of Legal Counsel analyzed the question and found that the murder statute did not apply to presidents when they were acting under public authority, so authorizing the strike was lawful. This is the way the system can function, he said — the Justice Department analyzes laws carefully and with established principles.

Justice Kavanaugh signals that he is likely to find that presidents must have immunity for their official actions. He talks about how the threat of prosecution by independent counsels (under a law that lapsed in 1999) hampered Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton, and says a 1984 ruling upholding that structure as constitutional was one of the Supreme Court’s biggest mistakes. (Notably, Kavanaugh was a prosecutor on the staff of independent counsel Ken Starr during his investigation into President Bill Clinton, before becoming a White House lawyer under President George W. Bush.)

Dreeben tries to push back on Kavanaugh’s argument by saying that even after Watergate, even after all of the independent counsel investigations mentioned above, the legal system has survived without “having gone off on a runaway train” of actual criminal prosecutions against former presidents.

The Supreme Court rejected Bill Clinton’s claim of immunity.

In Clinton v. Jones in 1997, the Supreme Court unanimously allowed a sexual harassment suit against President Bill Clinton to proceed while he was in office, discounting concerns that it would distract him from his official responsibilities. Both of his appointees, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, voted against him.

“The president is subject to judicial process in appropriate circumstances,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court, adding, “We have never suggested that the president, or any other official, has an immunity that extends beyond the scope of any action taken in an official capacity.”

The case was in one sense harder than the one against Mr. Trump, as it involved a sitting president. In another sense, though, it was easier, as it concerned an episode said to have taken place before Mr. Clinton took office (Paula Jones, an Arkansas state employee, said Mr. Clinton had made lewd advances in a hotel room when he was governor of the state).

The case is best remembered for a prediction in Justice Stevens’s majority opinion that “it appears to us highly unlikely to occupy any substantial amount of petitioner’s time.” In fact, it led to Mr. Clinton’s impeachment.

In the same paragraph, Justice Stevens made a second prediction.

“In the more than 200-year history of the Republic, only three sitting presidents have been subjected to suits for their private actions,” he wrote. “If the past is any indicator, it seems unlikely that a deluge of such litigation will ever engulf the presidency.”

Suits against Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman were dismissed, and one against President John F. Kennedy involving a car accident during his 1960 campaign was settled. The case against Mr. Clinton added a fourth.

Justice Stevens, who died in 2019, failed to anticipate the enormous volume of civil and criminal litigation in which Mr. Trump and his businesses have been named as defendants.

We are now over the two-hour mark of the Supreme Court’s arguments in the Trump immunity case. The Justice Department lawyer has continued to face skeptical questions from many of the court’s conservatives, several of whom appear particularly focused on how to draw the line between a president’s core powers and non-core powers. In other words, what actions by a president might be shielded from prosecution and what would not. The questioning suggests that some of the justices may favor a ruling that could lead to more lower-court proceedings, perhaps delaying the trial.

The Supreme Court’s relatively new process (coming out of Covid) of letting each justice ask questions at the end in order of seniority has an interesting consequence, as seen here. Dreeben kept wanting to say these things about government legal memos and to go into the details about the actions Trump is accused of taking, but the Republican-appointed justices kept cutting him off. It’s the turn of Kagan, a Democratic appointee, to ask any final questions she wants, and she is letting him talk on and on.

Much of the discussion this morning has swirled around the question of whether, without immunity, presidents will be hounded by their rivals with malicious charges after leaving office. Alito and other conservatives on the court seem concerned that the Trump prosecutions will open the door to endless attacks against future presidents.

The other main topic of discussion has been whether presidents enjoy some form of immunity for carrying out their official duties and, if so, how those official actions are defined. That’s an important question for the Trump election case because Trump has claimed he was acting in his role as president when, by his own account, he sought to root out fraud in the 2020 vote count. It’s also important for a different reason: the justices could send the official acts question back to a lower court to sort out, and that process could take a long time, delaying the case's trial until after this year’s election.

Justice Alito suggests that there is a risk to our stable democracy if presidents who lose close elections would not be allowed to retire in peace but could face prosecution. He has essentially flipped the situation under consideration upside down: that Trump is being prosecuted for having used fraud to remain in power after losing a close election.

A part of this exchange between Justice Alito and the Justice Department's lawyer, Dreeben, gets at a pressure point in American-style democracy and the rule of law. One of the safeguards against illegitimate prosecutions of ex-presidents, Dreeben says, is that if the Justice Department has advised the president that doing something would be lawful, the department could not later turn around and prosecute the now-former president for relying on that advice and doing that thing.

Alito points out that this creates an incentive for presidents to appoint attorneys general who will just tell them that anything they want to do would be legal. Indeed — that is a critique of the Office of Legal Counsel system, in which politically appointed lawyers decide what the law means for the executive branch.

An example: During the George W. Bush administration, memos about post-9/11 surveillance and torture were written by a politically appointed lawyer with idiosyncratically broad views of a president’s supposed power, as commander in chief, to authorize violations of surveillance and torture laws. The Justice Department later withdrew those memos as espousing a false view of the law, but held that officials who had taken action based on those memos could not be charged with crimes.

Justice Alito suggests there are not enough legal safeguards in place to protect presidents against malicious prosecution if they don’t have some form of immunity. He tells Dreeben that the grand jury process isn’t much of a protection because prosecutors, as the saying goes, can indict a ham sandwich. When Dreeben tries to argue that prosecutors sometimes don’t indict people who don’t deserve it, Alito dismissively says, “Every once in a while there’s an eclipse too.”

If you are just joining in, the justices are questioning the Justice Department lawyer, Michael Dreeben, about the government’s argument that former President Trump is not absolutely immune from prosecution on charges that he plotted to subvert the 2020 election. Dreeben has faced skeptical questions from several of the conservative justices, including both Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, who have suggested that the fraud conspiracy statute being used against the former president is vague. That statute is central to the government’s case against Trump.

Justice Alito now joins Justice Kavanaugh in suggesting that the fraud conspiracy statute is very vague and broadly drawn. That is bad news for the indictment brought against Trump by Jack Smith, the special counsel.

The scope and viability of this fraud statute, which is absolutely central to the Trump indictment, wasn’t on the menu of issues seemingly at play in this hearing. Kavanaugh and Alito appear to have gone out of their way to question its use in the Trump case.

Justice Sotomayor points out that under the Trump team’s theory that a criminal statute has to clearly state that it applies to the presidency for it to cover a president’s official actions, there would essentially be no accountability at all. Because only a tiny handful of laws mention the president, that means a president could act contrary to them without violating them. As a result, the Senate could not even impeach a president for violating criminal statutes, she says — because he would not be violating those laws if they don’t apply to the president.

Dreeben is under heavy fire from the court’s conservatives.

The precedent most helpful to Trump: Nixon v. Fitzgerald.

In 1982, in Nixon v. Fitzgerald , the Supreme Court ruled that former President Richard M. Nixon had absolute immunity from civil lawsuits — ones brought by private litigants seeking money — for conduct “within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.”

The ruling is helpful to former President Donald J. Trump, establishing as it does that immunity can be expansive, lives on after a president leaves office and extends to the very limits of what may be said to be official conduct.

But the decision also falls well short of dictating the outcome in the case that is being argued on Thursday, which concerns a criminal prosecution, not a civil suit.

The 1982 case arose from a lawsuit brought by an Air Force analyst, A. Ernest Fitzgerald, who said he was fired in 1970 in retaliation for his criticism of cost overruns. By the time the Supreme Court acted, Nixon had been out of office for several years.

“In view of the special nature of the president’s constitutional office and functions,” Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. wrote for the majority 5-to-4 decision, “we think it appropriate to recognize absolute presidential immunity from damages liability” for Nixon’s official conduct, broadly defined.

But the decision drew a sharp line between civil suits, which it said can be abusive and harassing, and criminal prosecutions like the one Mr. Trump is facing.

“In view of the visibility of his office and the effect of his actions on countless people, the president would be an easily identifiable target for suits for civil damages,” Justice Powell wrote, adding, “The court has recognized before that there is a lesser public interest in actions for civil damages than, for example, in criminal prosecutions.”

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger underscored the point in a concurring opinion. “The immunity is limited to civil damages claims,” he wrote.

Even in the context of civil suits, Nixon v. Fitzgerald conferred immunity only on conduct within the “outer perimeter” of a president’s official duties. Jack Smith, the special counsel, has said that Mr. Trump’s efforts to subvert democracy are well outside that line.

The Justice Department has already granted sitting presidents immunity while they are in office.

Former President Donald J. Trump’s claim that former presidents must enjoy “complete immunity” from prosecution for any crimes they committed in office would significantly expand the temporary immunity that sitting presidents already have.

Nothing in the Constitution or federal statutes says that presidents are shielded from being prosecuted while in office, and no court has ever ruled that way. But political appointees in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, whose interpretations are binding on the executive branch, have declared that the Constitution implicitly establishes such immunity.

This argument boils down to practicalities of governance: The stigma of being indicted and the burden of a trial would unduly interfere with a president’s ability to carry out his duties, Robert G. Dixon Jr. , then the head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, wrote in a memo in September 1973 . This would prevent the executive branch “from accomplishing its constitutional functions” in a way that cannot “be justified by an overriding need,” he added.

Mr. Dixon, an appointee of President Richard M. Nixon, wrote his memo against the backdrop of the Watergate scandal, when Mr. Nixon faced a criminal investigation by a special counsel, Archibald Cox. The next month, Nixon’s solicitor general, Robert H. Bork , in a court brief , similarly argued for an “inference” that the Constitution makes sitting presidents immune from indictment and trial.

(That same month, Mr. Nixon had Mr. Cox fired in the so-called Saturday Night Massacre. Mr. Nixon’s attorney general and deputy attorney general resigned rather than carry out his orders to oust the prosecutor; Mr. Nixon then turned to Mr. Bork, the department’s No. 3, who proved willing to do it. Amid a political backlash, Mr. Nixon was forced to allow a new special counsel, Leon Jaworski , to resume the investigation.)

The question arose again a generation later, when President Bill Clinton faced an investigation by Kenneth Starr, an independent counsel, into the Whitewater land deal that morphed into an inquiry into his affair with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern. Randolph D. Moss , Mr. Clinton’s appointee to lead the Office of Legal Counsel, reviewed the Justice Department’s 1973 opinions and reaffirmed their conclusions .

Legal scholars, as well as staff for prosecutors investigating presidents, have disputed the legitimacy of that constitutional theory. In 1974, Mr. Jaworski received a memo from his staff saying he could, in fact, indict Mr. Nixon while he was in office, and he later made that case in a court brief .

And in a 56-page memo in 1998, Ronald Rotunda, a prominent conservative constitutional scholar whom Mr. Starr hired as a consultant on his legal team, rejected the view that presidents are immune from prosecution while in office. Mr. Starr later said that he had concluded that he could indict Mr. Clinton.

“It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties,” Mr. Rotunda wrote. “In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.”

Mr. Starr commissioned the Rotunda memo as he was drafting a potential indictment of Mr. Clinton, and Mr. Starr decided that he could charge the president while in office. In the end, however, both Mr. Jaworski and Mr. Starr decided to let congressional impeachment proceedings play out and did not try to bring indictments while Mr. Nixon and Mr. Clinton remained in office.

The question may never be definitively tested in the courts. In 1999, Congress allowed a law that created independent counsels like Mr. Starr — prosecutors who do not report to the attorney general — to expire, and the Justice Department issued regulations to allow for the appointment of semiautonomous special counsels for inquiries into potential high-level wrongdoing in the executive branch.

Special counsels are, however, bound by Justice Departments policies and practices — including the Office of Legal Counsel’s proclamation that sitting presidents are temporarily immune from criminal indictment or trial.

Alan Feuer and Charlie Savage

Is there such a thing as executive immunity?

There are no direct precedents on the broad question of whether presidents have criminal immunity for their official actions.

The Supreme Court has held that presidents are absolutely immune from civil lawsuits related to their official acts , in part to protect them against ceaseless harassment and judicial scrutiny of their day-to-day decisions. The court has also held that presidents can be sued over their personal actions .

The Supreme Court has further found that while presidents are sometimes immune from judicial subpoenas requesting internal executive branch information, that privilege is not absolute. Even presidents, the court has decided, can be forced to obey a subpoena in a criminal case if the need for information is great enough.

But until Mr. Trump wound up in court, the Supreme Court has never had a reason to decide whether former presidents are protected from being prosecuted for official actions. The Justice Department has long maintained that sitting presidents are temporarily immune from prosecution because criminal charges would distract them from their constitutional functions. But since Mr. Trump is not in office, that is not an issue.

The closest the country has come to the prosecution of a former president over official actions came in 1974, when Richard M. Nixon resigned to avoid being impeached over the Watergate scandal. But a pardon by his successor, President Gerald R. Ford, protected Nixon from indictment by the Watergate special prosecutor.

Mr. Smith’s team has argued that Ford’s pardon — and Nixon’s acceptance of it — demonstrates that both men understood that Nixon was not already immune. Mr. Trump’s team has sought to counter that point by arguing — inaccurately — that Nixon faced potential criminal charges only over private actions, like tax fraud. But the special prosecutor weighed charging Nixon with abusing his office to obstruct justice.

Mr. Trump’s team has argued that denying his claims risks unleashing a routine practice of prosecuting former presidents for partisan reasons. But Mr. Smith’s team has argued that if courts endorse Mr. Trump’s theory, then future presidents who are confident of surviving impeachment could, with impunity, commit any number of crimes in connection with their official actions.

“Such a result would severely undermine the compelling public interest in the rule of law and criminal accountability,” prosecutors wrote.

Hypothetical questions test the limits of Trump’s immunity claim.

An exchange during an appeals court argument in January about a hypothetical political assassination tested former President Donald J. Trump’s claim that he is absolutely immune from prosecution for his official conduct.

His lawyer, D. John Sauer, has urged the justices to consider only what he is actually accused of: plotting to subvert the 2020 election. But hypothetical questions are routine at the Supreme Court, and they have a way of illuminating the contours and implications of legal theories.

That is what happened in January, when Judge Florence Y. Pan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia had to press Mr. Sauer to get an answer to a hypothetical question: Are former presidents absolutely immune from prosecution, even for murders they ordered while in office?

“I asked you a yes-or-no question,” Judge Pan said. “Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”

Mr. Sauer said his answer was a “qualified yes,” by which he meant no. He explained that prosecution would be permitted only if the president were first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.

Impeachments of presidents are rare: There have been four in the history of the Republic, two of them of Mr. Trump. The number of convictions, which require a two-thirds majority of the Senate: zero.

Mr. Sauer’s statement called to mind a 2019 federal appeals court argument over whether Mr. Trump could block state prosecutors from obtaining his tax and business records. He maintained that he was immune not only from prosecution but also from criminal investigation so long as he was president.

At that time, Judge Denny Chin of the Second Circuit pressed William S. Consovoy, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, asking about his client’s famous statement that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue without losing political support.

“Local authorities couldn’t investigate?” Judge Chin asked, adding: “Nothing could be done? That’s your position?”

“That is correct,” said Mr. Consovoy. “That is correct.”

This headline followed: “If Trump Shoots Someone on 5th Ave., Does He Have Immunity? His Lawyer Says Yes.”

For his part, Mr. Sauer does not seem eager to revisit the question about assassinations. Indeed, in asking the Supreme Court to hear Mr. Trump’s appeal, Mr. Sauer urged the justices not to be distracted by “lurid hypotheticals” that “almost certainly never will occur.”

What counts as an official act as president?

Another issue that has come up in lower courts in this case was what counted as an official act for a president, as opposed to a private action that was not connected to his constitutional responsibilities.

If the justices want to dispose of the dispute without definitively ruling on whether presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts, they could do so by finding that the specific steps former President Donald J. Trump took to remain in office that are cited in the federal indictment were not official actions. If so, the broader immunity question would not matter, and the prosecution could proceed.

The acts by Mr. Trump cited in the indictment include using deceit to organize fake slates of electors and to try to get state officials to subvert legitimate election results; trying to get the Justice Department and Vice President Mike Pence to help fraudulently alter the results; directing his supporters to the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021; and exploiting the violence and chaos of their ensuing riot.

In its court filings, Mr. Trump’s team has sought to reframe those accusations not only as official actions, but innocuous or even admirable ones.

“All five types of conduct alleged in the indictment constitute official acts,” they wrote. “They all reflect President Trump’s efforts and duties, squarely as chief executive of the United States, to advocate for and defend the integrity of the federal election, in accord with his view that it was tainted by fraud and irregularity.”

Mr. Smith’s team has argued that they should be seen as the efforts of a person seeking office, not of an officeholder carrying out government responsibilities.

“Those alleged acts were carried out by and on behalf of the defendant in his capacity as a candidate, and the extensive involvement of private attorneys and campaign staff in procuring the fraudulent slates as alleged in the indictment underscores that those activities were not within the outer perimeter of the office of the presidency,” they wrote.

Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is overseeing Mr. Trump’s case in Federal District Court in Washington, issued her ruling rejecting Mr. Trump’s immunity claim without including any detailed analysis of whether his acts were “official.”

If the Supreme Court were to send the matter back to her to take a stab at answering that question before restarting the appeals process, Mr. Trump will, at a minimum, have used up additional valuable time that could help push any trial past the election.

Noah Weiland and Alan Feuer

Here are the lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court.

The two lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court on Thursday have each played a role in some of the defining legal battles stemming from Mr. Trump’s term in office.

Arguing the case for the special counsel Jack Smith will be Michael Dreeben, who worked for a different special counsel’s office that scrutinized Mr. Trump’s presidency: Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into links between Russia and associates of Mr. Trump. Mr. Dreeben, one of the nation’s leading criminal law experts, has made more than 100 oral arguments before the Supreme Court, including when he served as deputy solicitor general.

On Mr. Mueller’s team, he handled pretrial litigation, defending the scope of the investigation and preventing the office from losing cases on appeal. He also helped with a second part of Mr. Mueller’s investigation, examining whether Mr. Trump had tried to obstruct the inquiry in his dealings with associates involved in the case.

Mr. Dreeben, who was heavily involved in the writing of Mr. Mueller’s final report on his investigation, supported an interpretation of presidential power that emphasized limits on what a president could do while exercising his or her powers, according to “Where Law Ends,” a book written by Andrew Weissmann, another prosecutor on Mr. Mueller’s team.

After Mr. Mueller’s investigation concluded, Mr. Dreeben took a teaching position at Georgetown University’s law school and returned to private practice at O’Melveny, arguing in front of the Supreme Court on behalf of the city of Austin over a First Amendment dispute about the placement of digital billboards.

Opposing Mr. Dreeben in front of the Supreme Court will be D. John Sauer, a lawyer based in St. Louis who once served as the solicitor general of Missouri. Mr. Sauer joined Mr. Trump’s legal team late last year to handle appellate matters, including his challenge to a gag order imposed on him in the election case in Washington.

As Missouri’s solicitor general, Mr. Sauer took part in a last-ditch effort to keep Mr. Trump in power after his defeat in the 2020 election, filing a motion on behalf of his state and five others in support of an attempt by Texas to have the Supreme Court toss out the results of the vote count in several key swing states.

He also joined in an unsuccessful bid with Texas in asking the Supreme Court to stop the Biden administration from rescinding a Trump-era immigration program that forces certain asylum seekers arriving at the southwestern border to await approval in Mexico.

When he left the solicitor general’s office last January, Mr. Sauer, who once clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia, returned to his private firm, the James Otis Law Group. The firm is named after a prominent Revolutionary War-era lawyer who built a career out of challenging abuses by British colonial forces.

To justify his defense in the immunity case, Trump turns to a familiar tactic.

When the Supreme Court considers Donald J. Trump’s sweeping claims of executive immunity on Thursday, it will break new legal ground, mulling for the first time the question of whether a former president can avoid being prosecuted for things he did in office.

But in coming up with the argument, Mr. Trump used a tactic on which he has often leaned in his life as a businessman and politician: He flipped the facts on their head in an effort to create a different reality.

At the core of his immunity defense is a claim that seeks to upend the story told by federal prosecutors in an indictment charging him with plotting to overturn the 2020 election. In that indictment, prosecutors described a criminal conspiracy by Mr. Trump to subvert the election results and stay in power.

In Mr. Trump’s telling, however, those same events are official acts that he undertook as president to safeguard the integrity of the race and cannot be subject to prosecution.

In many ways, Mr. Trump’s immunity claim is breathtaking. In one instance, his lawyers went so far as to say that a president could not be prosecuted even for using the military to assassinate a rival unless he was first impeached.

But the wholesale rewriting of the government’s accusations — which first appeared six months ago in Mr. Trump’s motion to dismiss the election interference case — may be the most audacious part of his defense. It was certainly a requisite step his lawyers had to take to advance the immunity argument.

Other courts have ruled that presidents enjoy limited immunity from civil lawsuits for things they did as part of the formal responsibilities of their job. To extend that legal concept to criminal charges, Mr. Trump’s lawyers needed to reframe all of the allegations lodged against him in the election interference case as official acts of his presidency rather than as the actions of a candidate misusing his power.

Biden to speak at Morehouse College commencement, sparking faculty concerns

WASHINGTON — Morehouse College is set to announce that President Joe Biden will deliver its commencement address on May 19, but some faculty members have raised concerns about the decision, according to two people familiar with the matter and an email to faculty members reviewed by NBC News.

“This week, I received an inquiry from concerned faculty about rumors they were hearing about President Biden’s selection as the 2024 Commencement speaker,” Kendrick Brown, Morehouse College’s provost and senior vice president for academic affairs, wrote in the email to faculty members Friday.

Brown said he would convene a virtual meeting Thursday “to extend an opportunity for faculty with different perspectives on the selection of our Commencement speaker to ask questions and make comments.” He said students would also engage with college President David Thomas.

Brown did not respond to a request for further comment, and a spokesperson for Morehouse declined to offer more details.

A Morehouse faculty member told NBC News administrators are believed to be concerned that faculty members will join students in protest of Biden during the ceremony.

The pushback against leadership’s decision comes amid increasing protests on college campuses over Biden’s support for Israel in its war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The protests since the war began in October have already forced Biden, and other top administration officials, to dramatically scale back appearances at college campuses.

Commencement season is typically a time when presidents reach young audiences, and it offers them opportunities to deliver keynote addresses highlighting their accomplishments and the future. In an election year, commencement speeches can carry particular significance.

But Biden’s addresses this year are poised to be fraught, largely because of growing protests over his refusal to call for a permanent, immediate cease-fire in Gaza without conditions. Biden is struggling with younger voters, and recent polling also indicates many Black voters are not enthusiastic about supporting his candidacy.

Speaking at a historically Black college would provide an “opportunity” for Biden, according to the person familiar with the controversy.

The White House declined to comment.

israeli hamas conflict columbia university protest palestinian

Brown wrote in his email that Morehouse first extended its invitation to Biden in September and that the college would announce him as its speaker early this week.

And, he wrote, “the College does not plan to rescind its accepted invitation to President Biden.” The meeting Thursday “is a forum for discussion and to respond to questions about the invitation that was extended and accepted,” he wrote.

Morehouse, like other colleges, has faced students speaking out about the war in Gaza. In February, the Maroon Tiger — Morehouse’s student publication — reported that a student pulled an Israeli flag down from the chapel and was detained by campus police.

“Students are not in favor of the way in which the United States has handled this situation, and are surely not in favor of the trauma and the pain and the genocide that the Palestinian people are going through — but also that innocent civilians and Israel are going through as well,” Calvin Bell, a Morehouse College student said in February, after the flag incident.

A source familiar with the commencement planning told NBC News: “It’s not been a secret nationwide, if not globally, that there are a lot of concerns ... about how the war has been handled and how America and the presidency has been in the war. We’ve heard conversations like that. There’s also plenty of people who are excited to have a sitting president as their commencement speaker.”

Carol E. Lee is the Washington managing editor.

Nnamdi Egwuonwu is a 2024 NBC News campaign embed.

Aaron Gilchrist is a White House correspondent for NBC News.

USC cancels appearance by director Jon Chu, others amid valedictorian controversy

Show more sharing options
Copy Link URL Copied!

USC called off an appearance from director Jon M. Chu and other commencement honorees in the wake of growing controversy over its decision to cancel valedictorian Asna Tabassum’s graduation speech amid security concerns, the university announced Friday .

In a letter posted on its website, the university wrote that “given the highly publicized circumstances surrounding our main-stage commencement program,” it made the decision to “release our outside speakers and honorees from attending this year’s ceremony.”

“We’ve been talking to this exceptional group and hope to confer these honorary degrees at a future commencement or other academic ceremonies,” the unsigned letter said.

LOS ANGELES, CA - APRIL 16, 2024 - Asna Tabassum, a graduating senior at USC, was selected as valedictorian and offered a traditional slot to speak at the 2024 graduation. After on-and-off campus groups criticized the decision and the university said it received threats, it pulled her from the graduation speakers schedule. Tabassum was photographed on the USC campus on April 16, 2024. (Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

USC valedictorian’s grad speech is canceled: ‘The university has betrayed me’

Asna Tabassum was selected as USC valedictorian and offered a slot to speak at graduation. The university canceled her speech after pro-Israel groups criticized her Instagram.

April 16, 2024

In March, the university announced that Chu, a USC alumnus and director of “Crazy Rich Asians,” would deliver the May 10 commencement speech at its main ceremony, which draws over 65,000 attendees.

Along with Chu, tennis legend Billie Jean King, National Endowment for the Arts Chair Maria Rosario Jackson and National Academy of Sciences President Marcia McNutt were set to receive honorary degrees.

King will still be the keynote speaker for the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism’s satellite ceremony.

The university cited unspecified security threats in canceling the traditional valedictorian speech by Tabassum after pro-Israel groups launched a campaign against her because she posted a link on Instagram to a pro-Palestinian website criticizing Israel. The link contained content the groups considered antisemitic.

But in Friday’s round of cancellations, USC did not indicate there was any safety issue. Instead, it said it wanted to “keep the focus on our graduates.” There did not appear to be wide backlash against Chu, King or others.

USC declined to offer an interview about the unraveling commencement with President Carol Folt, who a representative earlier this week said had the “final decision” on the Tabassum cancellation and security matters.

Erroll Southers, the university’s associate senior vice president of safety and risk assurance, also declined to comment Friday.

Representatives for Chu and King did not respond to requests for comment. Jackson did not reply to a phone call and text message. McNutt did not reply to an email.

On Friday afternoon, graduating seniors posed for photos in their caps and gowns by the Tommy Trojan statue in the center of campus as other students walked about. Many said they were surprised and confused by the news.

Franco Gutierrez, a USC junior, called the move “awful” and “heartbreaking.”

“I didn’t think that is how they’d respond to the protest,” Gutierrez said.

“It’s ridiculous,” said a recent graduate — who did not give her name — as she walked on campus with enrolled students.

Christina Dunbar-Hester, a professor of communication, said in an email that “administrators have already embarrassed USC considerably and they owe Asna and the entire campus community an apology.”

“Many including myself are hoping to hear a fuller explication (including details about security concerns) and a path forward from our President, Carol Folt,” said Dunbar-Hester, who is the acting president of the American Assn. of University Professors USC chapter.

Friday’s move capped a week of intense debate over USC’s cancellation of Tabassum’s speech that included a campus protest that hundreds attended Thursday and criticism of USC by civil rights groups and politicians, including Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.

The saga began Monday, when USC Provost Andrew T. Guzman released a campus-wide letter citing unnamed threats that poured in shortly after the university announced Tabassum as valedictorian and scheduled speaker. Guzman said attacks against the student had reached an “alarming tenor” and “escalated to the point of creating substantial risks relating to security and disruption at commencement.”

The complaints focused on a link on Tabassum’s Instagram profile to a pro-Palestinian website that said, “Zionism is a racist settler-colonialist ideology,” and “One Palestinian state would mean Palestinian liberation and the complete abolishment of the state of Israel” so that “both Arabs and Jews can live together.”

Guzman did not indicate what the threats were or against whom they were directed. A spokeswoman for the Los Angeles Police Department, Capt. Kelly Muniz, told The Times the agency had no crime reports regarding violent threats targeting Tabassum or the commencement ceremony.

Speaking to The Times on Tuesday, Tabassum defended herself and said she is not antisemitic. She said she supports the pro-Palestinian cause that has grown at college campuses since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which the Israeli government says killed 1,200 people and took about 240 hostages, before Israel’s retaliatory war in the Gaza Strip. Gaza health authorities say the war has killed about 34,000 Palestinians. According to the United Nations, 2 million Gazans are in near-famine conditions.

Did USC set ‘very bad precedent’ by canceling valedictorian speech over safety threats?

Campus administrators nationwide struggle to uphold principles of free expression amid pressure from those who claim speech, or potential speech, can subject students to harm.

April 18, 2024

“The university has betrayed me and caved in to a campaign of hatred,” Tabassum said.

On Friday, Tabassum — who still plans to attend graduation — declined to comment on the additional cancellations.

Times staff writer Matt Hamilton contributed to this report.

12 days that rocked USC: How a derailed commencement brought ‘complete disaster’

April 27, 2024

Los Angeles, CA - April 24: Pro-Palestinian demonstrators at USC on Wednesday, April 24, 2024 in Los Angeles, CA. (Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

Opinion: USC’s ‘security risk’ rationale to thwart peaceful protest is not justified

April 25, 2024

LOS ANGELES, CA - MAY 13: A graduate puts on her cap before posing for a photo at USC's commencement ceremony on Friday, May 13, 2022 in Los Angeles, CA. (Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

USC cancels ‘main stage’ commencement ceremony

Start your day right

Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Angie Orellana Hernandez is a 2023-24 reporting fellow at the Los Angeles Times. She previously worked at The Times as an arts and entertainment intern. She graduated from USC, where she studied journalism and Spanish. Prior to joining The Times, she covered entertainment, as well as human interest, legal and crime stories at E! News. Her writing can also be found in USA Today, the Boston Globe, CNN and KCRA3.

Jaweed Kaleem is a national correspondent at the Los Angeles Times. Based in L.A. with a focus on issues outside of California, he has traveled to dozens of states to cover news and deeply reported features on the complexity of the American experience. His articles frequently explore race, religion, politics, social debates and polarized society. Kaleem was previously based in London, where he was a lead news writer on Russia’s war on Ukraine and spearheaded European coverage for the Times, including the Global California initiative. Before joining The Times in 2016, he reported on religion for HuffPost and the Miami Herald, where he was a member of a Pulitzer Prize finalist team recognized for coverage of Haiti. His reporting has also received awards from the Society of Professional Journalists, the Society for Features Journalism, the Asian American Journalists Assn., the South Asian Journalists Assn. and the National Headliner Awards.

More From the Los Angeles Times

George Washington University police officer scan the area as students demonstrate on campus during a pro-Palestinian protest over the Israel-Hamas war on Friday, April 26, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

World & Nation

Antiwar protesters dig in as some schools close encampments after reports of antisemitic activity

People carry the bodies of Palestinians who were killed in an Israeli airstrike in Nuseirat into the Al Aqsa hospital in Deir al Balah, Gaza Strip, Saturday, April 27, 2024. (AP Photo/Abdel Kareem Hana)

Hamas is reviewing an Israeli proposal for a cease-fire in Gaza, as a planned Rafah offensive looms

At usc, arrests. at ucla, hands off. why pro-palestinian protests have not blown up on uc campuses.

April 26, 2024

Columbia protesters say they’re at an impasse with administrators, will continue antiwar camp

FBI says Chinese hackers preparing to attack US infrastructure

Medium Text

FBI Director Christopher Wray testifies before a House Approbations Subcommittee

Reporting by Christopher Bing; Editing by Richard Chang

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

Thomson Reuters

Award-winning reporter covering the intersection between technology and national security with a focus on how the evolving cybersecurity landscape affects government and business.

U.S. President Joe Biden and Japanese PM Fumio Kishida hold a joint press conference in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington

Technology Chevron

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken visits China

U.S. chip bans not meant to hobble China's growth, Blinken says

U.S. export controls on sending advanced computing chips to China are not meant to hold back China's economy or technological development, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said during an interview with National Public Radio on Friday.

IMAGES

Reported Speech: A Complete Grammar Guide ~ ENJOY THE JOURNEY
REPORTED SPEECH: Qué es y cómo usarlo?
ESL Teachers: REPORTED SPEECH
Reported Questions: Direct and Indirect Questions • 7ESL
REPORTED SPEECH: Qué es y cómo usarlo?
how write a reported speech

VIDEO

Reported Speech ( Questions ) 3 A S كلّ الشُّعب #bac_2024
Reported speech.. previous year questions & answers for XI
REPORTED QUESTIONS KONU ANLATIMI (TÜRKÇE)
Reported Speech
Reported Speech Test
Reported Speech

COMMENTS

Reported speech: questions
A reported question is when we tell someone what another person asked. To do this, we can use direct speech or indirect speech. direct speech: 'Do you like working in sales?' he asked. indirect speech: He asked me if I liked working in sales. In indirect speech, we change the question structure (e.g. Do you like) to a statement structure (e.g.
Conditionals and Reported Speech
Second conditional in reported speech. The above tense and modal shifting rules apply to the second conditional too. If the condition is still relevant, no changes occur. However, if it's outdated, the past simple becomes the past perfect, and would becomes would + have + past participle. Sofia: If I had more money, I would buy a new car.
Reported Questions
Reported questions are one form of reported speech. direct question. reported question. She said: "Are you cold?" She asked me if I was cold. He said: "Where's my pen?" He asked where his pen was. We usually introduce reported questions with the verb "ask": He asked (me) if / whether ...
Reported Questions: Direct and Indirect Questions • 7ESL
Reported Speech in English. (Reported Questions: Direct and Indirect Questions) The 7ESL App is an innovative English learning application designed to help users speak English fluently using advanced AI technology. Reported Speech Questions! Learn how to form Reported Questions in English with useful grammar rules and example sentences.
Reported Speech
To change an imperative sentence into a reported indirect sentence, use to for imperative and not to for negative sentences. Never use the word that in your indirect speech. Another rule is to remove the word please. Instead, say request or say. For example: "Please don't interrupt the event," said the host.
Reported Speech: Rules, Examples, Exceptions
When we use reported speech, we often change the verb tense backwards in time. This can be called "backshift.". Here are some examples in different verb tenses: "I want to go home.". She said she wanted to go home. "I 'm reading a good book.". She said she was reading a good book. "I ate pasta for dinner last night.".
Reported Speech
He asked if she lived in London. It is also important that you use an indirect question in reported speech, i.e. after the interrogative or ‚whether' / ‚if' you continue the sentence as if it were a statement (subject-verb etc.). The auxiliary verb ‚do' is not used in indirect questions. He asked: Where does she live? - He asked ...
Reported questions
Reported Questions. When we report what people say, we usually change the tense of the verbs to reflect that we are reporting - not giving direct speech. This pattern is followed when we report questions and there are also other important changes between direct questions and reported questions. Reported questions are one form of reported speech.
Reported Speech Exercises
Lots of reported speech exercises - practise using free interactive quizzes. Login Contact Courses Membership Speaking Explanations Exercises Method. ... Reported Questions: Present Simple Reported Yes/No Question Exercise (intermediate) (in PDF here) Present Simple Reported Wh Question Exercise (intermediate)
Reported Speech: Important Grammar Rules and Examples • 7ESL
Reported speech: He asked if he would see me later. In the direct speech example you can see the modal verb 'will' being used to ask a question. Notice how in reported speech the modal verb 'will' and the reporting verb 'ask' are both written in the past tense. So, 'will' becomes 'would' and 'ask' becomes 'asked'.
Reported Speech
Watch my reported speech video: Here's how it works: We use a 'reporting verb' like 'say' or 'tell'. ( Click here for more about using 'say' and 'tell' .) If this verb is in the present tense, it's easy. We just put 'she says' and then the sentence: Direct speech: I like ice cream. Reported speech: She says (that) she likes ice cream.
Reported Speech Questions
Reported Speech Imperatives Exercise -. Reported Mixed Exercise. Reported Questions Grammar: a. We use introductory verbs like ask, wonder, want to know, inquire... b. We change the interrogative word-order to statement word-order. c. All the other changes in indirect speech still apply.
Reported speech in English: explanation, examples
You can also view the topic 'reported questions' for a detailed explanation and exercises. Reported requests and demands. If we want to transform somebody's demand or request into reported speech, we say: tell somebody to do something — for reported commands; ask somebody to do something — for reported requests
Reported questions, Exercise
Reported questions in English, Questions, Question, Online Exercise. Task No. 2323. Finish the sentences using Reported speech. Always change the tense, although it is sometimes not necessary.. Show example
Unit 6
Unit 6 - Exercise 2 - Reported speech (questions) | Solutions | Oxford University Press. Solutions > Intermediate > Grammar > Unit 6 - Exercise 2 - Reported speech (questions) Unit 6 - Exercise 2 - Reported speech (questions) Choose the correct answer.
Reported speech: indirect speech
Reported speech: indirect speech - English Grammar Today - a reference to written and spoken English grammar and usage - Cambridge Dictionary
Indirect speech
Questions and imperatives in indirect speech. Download full-size image from Pinterest. We use the normal order of words in reported questions: subject + verb. We don't use an auxiliary verb like do or did. When we report an order or instruction, we use the form ask or tell someone to do something.
What is Reported Speech and How to Use It? with Examples
Reported speech is different from direct speech because it does not use the speaker's exact words. Instead, the reporting verb is used to introduce the reported speech, and the tense and pronouns are changed to reflect the shift in perspective. There are two main types of reported speech: statements and questions. 1.
PDF Reported Speech Discussion Questions
Reported Speech Discussion Questions. Work in twos or threes. Take turns asking questions from below, for three or four minutes each time before switching roles. Is there is more than one question on a line that you choose, only use the other questions on that line after your partner answers the first. question, and only if they don't mention ...
Reported questions; forming indirect questions in English.
Reported or indirect questions in English Reported questions and verb tenses in English While expressing reported statements in English is relatively easy to master, putting direct questions into reported speech can often cause problems for the learner. The simplest way to master the rules or structures is to start with a few varied direct questions, and use them as models.
Indirect Speech: Indirect Questions (if, whether)
When in the direct question there is no such question word, you have to use if or whether. Mrs Biscuit: "Would you like some more peas, Mike?" Mrs Biscuit asked Mike whether he wanted some more peas. You do not need question marks at the end of indirect questions. You do not use a comma. Now transform all cases of direct speech or direct ...
TikTok says US House bill that could ban app would 'trample' free speech
WASHINGTON, April 21 (Reuters) - TikTok on Sunday repeated its free-speech concerns about a bill passed by the House of Representatives that would ban the popular social media app in the U.S. if ...
Ohio State faculty question student protest arrests over Gaza war
The arrests come a day after Ohio State President Ted Carter said in an end-of-the-semester email that he respects students' right to freedom of speech, but "will not compromise" on matters of safety.
Justices Seem Ready to Limit the 2020 Election Case Against Trump
"It's a serious constitutional question whether a statute can be applied to the president's official acts. So wouldn't you always interpret the statute not to apply to the president, even ...
Biden to speak at Morehouse College commencement, sparking faculty concerns
Morehouse College is set to announce that President Joe Biden will deliver its commencement address on May 19, but some faculty members have raised concerns about the decision.
USC cancels 'main stage' commencement ceremony
After tensions led USC to drop its valedictorian and keynote speaker from its main commencement ceremony, the school canceled its largest graduation event.
USC cancels Jon Chu commencement appearance amid valedictorian
In March, the university announced that Chu, a USC alumnus and director of "Crazy Rich Asians," would deliver the May 10 commencement speech at its main ceremony, which draws over 65,000 ...
FBI says Chinese hackers preparing to attack US infrastructure
An ongoing Chinese hacking campaign known as Volt Typhoon has successfully gained access to numerous American companies in telecommunications, energy, water and other critical sectors, with 23 ...