Please give your answer before looking at other people's answers: I want to see what most people think it means, or if anyone realises both things it means before looking at other answers.
2006-09-28 01:51:36 · 25 answers · asked by Steve-Bob 4 in Education & Reference ➔ Words & Wordplay
I'm really looking for your first instinct. I don't want to know that after thinking for 5 minutes you realised what both possibilities were.
2006-09-28 04:05:20 · update #1
well, it is an ambiguos sentence. as it has many meanings...
However, my first gut reaction was tha,t a woman/girl said that she had read the letter.
2006-09-28 11:35:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
In reported speech we usually put the tense back. So "she" could have said "I read the letter." This moves the tense back one from the simple past to the past perfect. However, "she" could also have said, "I have read the letter." This is moving the tense from the present perfect to the past perfect.
There are other possibilities. The woman could have said "I'll read the letter." Indirect speech would change the will to would, abbreviate would to 'd and you get "She'd read the letter." However, most people to avoid confusion would give "would" its full value.
"I'd read the letter." 'd=had, past perfect. Reporting this would keep the sentence exactly the same except for the change in subject. Having said that there is usually a context which indicates two tenses and therefore the need of the use of the past perfect in direct speech.
That enough?
2006-09-28 18:12:54 · answer #2 · answered by markspanishfly 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Can either mean she is going to read the letter or she already read the letter.
2006-09-28 10:57:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It could mean she already read the letter in the past OR that she will read the letter in the future.
But honestly, I wouldn't have thought of both answers unless you told me there were two answers.
2006-09-28 10:03:57 · answer #4 · answered by danielle_thomas 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
"she'd" is a contraction for both "she had" and "she would". Of course which is also changes the tense of the verb - "she had" means "read" is pronounced "red" (past tense), "she would" means "read" is pronounced "reed" (future tense). Actually it would be more correct to say the tense of the verb determines what "she'd" is the contraction of. You need the sentence before and/or after the one in your question to determine what your question is actually saying.
2006-09-28 22:31:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It either means she said she is going to read the letter or that she has already read the letter. It depends on what the 'd stands for - whether it's had or would.
2006-09-28 09:02:45 · answer #6 · answered by h-e-a-t-h-e-r 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It means she said she would read the letter. Or it could mean she had read the letter. What is rocket science about this?
2006-09-28 08:58:12 · answer #7 · answered by Kokopelli 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That she'd already read the letter, or was about to read the letter!
2006-09-28 09:39:31 · answer #8 · answered by tattooedgray 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It can mean that she has read (red) or is going to read the letter. She had or she would, with past or future tense.
2006-09-28 12:24:10 · answer #9 · answered by Silkie1 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It could be either she said she had read the letter, or she said she would read the letter. She'd can be used for 'she had' or 'she would'.
2006-09-28 09:37:23 · answer #10 · answered by j.f. 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It either means," she said she had read the letter" past tense or "she said she would read the letter", present tense.
2006-09-28 12:19:59 · answer #11 · answered by xxdutch 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋