3

When I'm telling someone about a movie that I watched, is it correct to say, "They created a device that is able to send people into the past", or "They created a device that was able to send people into the past"? Or are both correct?

Pavel Orekhov
  • 381
  • 1
  • 3
  • 10

2 Answers2

3

You're using the past tense to talk about events in the movie you've finished watching. So, you should continue to do so:

They created a device that was able to send people into the past.

You'd only use "is able", in the present tense, if it would also make sense for you to say:

The device is able to send people into the past.

Present tense here could make sense if the film was a documentary, and time travel truly exists right now in the real world, or if you're in the middle of watching the film, the creation of the device happened earlier, and the device has not yet been destroyed. But for a film you finished watching, it sounds to me that past tense is the only one that really makes sense.

Note that in the similar sentence:

They created a device able to send people into the past.

"Able" is not present-tense, because it's not a verb, it's just an adjective. And in

They built the device to send people into the past.

"send" is infinitive, so also is still not present tense.

Dan Getz
  • 4,449
  • 22
  • 35
1

They created a device that was able to send people into the past.

This is the correct format. When narrating to someone you need to include past tenses in both places, "created" and "was".

Examples for simple present to simple past would be:

Direct: She said, “I work at New York Times.”
Indirect: She said that she worked at New York Times.

There is an exception to the case of conversion: f the content is still true or happening then we do not need to change the tense in the reported speech. Like;

Direct: She said, “I live in Paris.”
Indirect: She said that she lives in Paris.

Narrating is a thing that depicts events that are finished. Hence the exception case won't be needed here. The simple present would directly be converted into simple past tense.

Source of example

Dhanishtha Ghosh
  • 2,767
  • 11
  • 31
  • 1
    Good examples, but I think it would be better to change "in New York Times" to "at the New York Times" (that name is generally used with "the", and "in" is more used for articles in the paper itself) – Dan Getz Sep 17 '20 at 13:36
  • Thanks!! I will make the edit. – Dhanishtha Ghosh Sep 17 '20 at 13:37
  • I would say it depends on whether or not the device still exists. If the device still exists, then it is (present tense) able to send people into the past. Similarly, "Newton invented a model of physics that is able to describe reality to a certain degree of accuracy". Invented (past tense) because it happened in the past, but is (present tense) because the model still exists, still works, and is still able to describe reality. So as @DanGetz said, it might make sense to use "is" if the film was a documentary or the events actually happened to the narrator. – Bjonnfesk Sep 17 '20 at 22:29