0

Supposing that the subject of the noun clause is, in fact, presently, and intrinsically, the best, would the correct sentence be:

I heard [that] you are the best man for the job.

or

I heard [that] you were the best man for the job.

or perhaps either?

The argument for the former is that "is" more accurately represents the time window during which the subject is the best, whereas the argument for the latter is that tense agreement between "heard" and "was" is aesthetically pleasing.

Perhaps also supporting the latter is that "was" does not contradict "is"—per Hedberg, 1990s: "I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too."

herisson
  • 81,803
Milosz
  • 123
  • This is somewhat similar to http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/315330/using-of-verbs-in-noun-clauses, though the latter question concerns disambiguation between declarative and the imperative. – Milosz Mar 16 '17 at 16:08
  • For all practical purposes the two statements are interchangeable. – Ronald Sole Mar 16 '17 at 16:31
  • 1
    @Ronald Sole: Not at all. Only the second version could be used in contexts where "the job" has already been done at time of speaking. They're only "interchangeable" in contexts where that's not the case. – FumbleFingers Mar 16 '17 at 16:56
  • While the two are interchangeable, the second version refers to the past and could be a way to talk about that time in the past: "I remember that because I heard you were the best, I hired you with my paper route money." But for a job in the present, I would engender greater leverage by saying that you are the best for the job. – Yosef Baskin Mar 16 '17 at 16:59
  • @FumbleFingers I bow to your distinction. What I might have said is that most of the time, most native English speakers wouldn't give it a thought. – Ronald Sole Mar 16 '17 at 17:05
  • @Ronald Sole: We might not consciously think about it, but I bet on average the speaker would be less likely to "backshift" if *at time of speaking* he was actively engaging with the process of selecting someone to do the job (with the addressee as currently the preferred candidate). Correspondingly, backshifting would be more likely if the speaker had already made his choice (regardless of whether he did in fact select the addressee). The matter of "relevance to time of speaking" can be significant. – FumbleFingers Mar 16 '17 at 17:14
  • @FumbleFingers Here's my humble submission. I select from three workers the man with the best reputation to do a job. But I am dissatisfied with his work. It's equally legitimate for me to say to him afterwards: I heard that you are the best... indicating that the others are even worse; or: I heard that you were the best... Of course you might respond that this is merely argument from example or by analogy. But it's the best I can do. – Ronald Sole Mar 16 '17 at 17:40
  • @Ronald Sole: I think if I were the disgruntled customer in your scenario, my choice between *were* and *are* would probably be primarily based on whether I hoped that by using *are* I might encourage the guy to live up to his currently-relevant, though feasibly unjustified reputation by addressing my complaints. If I didn't believe that, and was just venting steam because I was dissatisfied, I'd use *were* (partly to dissociate myself from those obviously untrue rumours about the guy being any good, by placing more temporal distance between those past claims and now). – FumbleFingers Mar 16 '17 at 18:16
  • @FumbleFingers I retire from the fray with such dignity as remains intact. – Ronald Sole Mar 16 '17 at 18:36
  • For me, the most natural reading of "were" is "would likely prove to be," a belief that could be either confirmed or refuted based on the man's actual performance either in the past (in this job) or going forward (in this job). I can imagine its being used in cases where a supervisor wants to motivate a new employee who she believes was the best candidate, on the employee's first day of work, say, without (yet) fully committing to affirming (in the absence of real performance data) that the employee is in fact the best. – MDHunter Mar 16 '17 at 20:16
  • @FF That New Jersey duplicate needs a more findable name. Good sleuthing. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 16 '17 at 20:51
  • @Ronald Sole: I'm sorry if you feel I might have undermined your dignity. I was only trying to flag up a possible distinction/context you hadn't thought of - for the benefit of other users who might read our comments, not to start a disagreement with you. – FumbleFingers Mar 17 '17 at 12:32
  • @FumbleFingers I've just checked my dignity and it seems to be all there. Just imagine how dull this site would be if we were denied such occasional linguistic jousting. – Ronald Sole Mar 17 '17 at 13:10
  • @Ronald Sole: Indeed. So long as we're *all* "wanton boys" (nobody wants to be a "fly" in that context! :) – FumbleFingers Mar 17 '17 at 14:23

0 Answers0