1

The dialogue is mine.

A: I think that modern kids get a lot of freedom, much more than we used to get. I think sometimes it’s even too much.
B: Well, that’s true, but if I had a kid, I would definitely try to instill discipline in their character.
A: That would be a tall order. I believe a lot depends on the environment your kid’s in, and of course their interactions with peers. If you had a kid and you let them interact with their peers, they would definitely notice that the peers’ parents allowed their kids more.

Do I need to backshift in the last sentence?
It sounds like a general truth in this context, but I'm not sure.

Improve this question
6
  • 1
    The backshifting is idiomatic but not obligatory. Commented Jun 17 at 18:01
  • In a complex sentence like that, there's lots of inconsistency because people lose track of the nested tenses. And it doesn't really matter because the intent is understood regardless of the tenses. Commented Jun 17 at 18:14
  • 1
    Note: instil (British English), instill (American English) Commented Jun 17 at 18:30
  • Thank you very much, @TimR. Commented Jun 17 at 21:10
  • Thank you very much, @MichaelHarvey. Commented Jun 17 at 21:10

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
0

To answer your question, backshifting is not required. However, there are problems with the dialog itself.

  1. You're talking about getting freedom, where you really should be talking about having freedom:

I think that modern kids get have a lot of freedom, much more than we used to get have. I think sometimes it’s even too much.

  1. You can't really instill discipline*. I think you mean self-discipline, and it would be more common to talk about teaching it than instilling it:

Well, that’s true, but if I had a kid, I would definitely try to teach him self-discipline.

  1. The word "peers" is OK to use when talking in general or about the theoretical (although I would change some words):

I believe a lot depends on the environment your kid is in, and, of course, the interactions they have with with their peers.

But you wouldn't typically continue with the word "peers" when you apply it to the kids. Friends might be a better choice. but the whole last sentence doesn't really make sense:

If you had a kid and you let them interact with their peers, they would definitely notice that the peers’ parents allowed their kids more.

I can't envision a world in which kids don't interact with their peers, so that's very confusing. And it's not at all clear what you mean by "allowed their kids more" - more what? And what does that have to do with the rest of the dialog?

Improve this answer
1
  • In crappy-ish AmE, you might hear get for have here...I agree with you though but when I say that type of thing here, I'm told I'm being "prescriptivist". :) Commented Jul 25 at 13:21

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.