Reported speech retells words from a new speaking situation. Pronouns must therefore identify the people who are speaker, listener, and third party now, not simply copy the forms in the original quotation. Original mi often becomes li or ŝi, and original vi often becomes li, ŝi, or ili—but neither change is automatic.
The reliable method is to reconstruct the participants: who originally spoke, who was addressed, who is reporting now, and who is listening now? Then choose each pronoun from its current reference and grammatical role.
Direct quotation preserves the original viewpoint
Direct speech repeats the speaker's wording. Its mi means the quoted speaker and its vi means the original addressee.
Marta diris al Leo: ‘Mi telefonos al vi morgaŭ.’
Marta said to Leo, ‘I will call you tomorrow.’
Indirect speech removes the quotation and makes the content a subordinate clause:
Marta diris al Leo, ke ŝi telefonos al li la sekvan tagon.
Marta told Leo that she would call him the following day.
Original mi becomes ŝi because Marta is now being discussed. Original vi becomes li because Leo is now being discussed. The changes reflect reference, not a mechanical replacement chart.
First and second person may remain unchanged
If the original speaker is also the current reporter, mi remains mi. If the original addressee is still the person being addressed, vi remains vi.
Mi diris al vi, ke mi venos helpi vin.
I told you that I would come help you.
This sentence reports an earlier statement while the same mi speaks to the same vi. A rule saying “change every first and second person to third person” would produce the wrong result.
The listener can also become the grammatical subject of the report:
Ĉu vi vere diris, ke vi ne povos veni?
Did you really say that you would not be able to come?
The person who originally said “I cannot come” is now the person addressed as vi. Person shifts with the communication setting.
Object forms shift too
Case and prepositions must be recalculated after the referents are chosen.
Karlo diris al Eva: ‘Mi amas vin.’
Karlo said to Eva, ‘I love you.’
Karlo diris al Eva, ke li amas ŝin.
Karlo told Eva that he loved her.
In the report, Karlo is subject li and Eva is direct object ŝin. If Petro instead asks Karlo about the same statement, the forms change again:
Petro demandis Karlon: ‘Ĉu vi vere diris, ke vi amas ŝin?’
Petro asked Karlo, ‘Did you really say that you love her?’
Now Karlo is the current addressee vi, while Eva remains third-person object ŝin.
Possessives follow the new clause structure
Original possessive forms often change along with personal pronouns. Reflexive sia becomes especially useful when the reported speaker is also the subject of the reported clause.
Karlo diris: ‘Mi iros al miaj gepatroj.’
Karlo said, ‘I will go to my parents.’
Karlo diris, ke li iros al siaj gepatroj.
Karlo said that he would go to his own parents.
Within the ke-clause, subject li refers to Karlo, so his own parents are siaj gepatroj. Using liaj would normally point to another male person's parents.
Change the embedded subject and the choice reverses:
Karlo diris, ke Maria vizitos liajn gepatrojn.
Karlo said that Maria would visit his—Karlo's—parents.
Here siaj gepatroj would mean Maria's own parents, because embedded subject Maria controls sia. Ordinary liaj reaches back through discourse to Karlo.
Si cannot become the subject
Even when the original speaker and the reported subject are the same person, Esperanto uses li/ŝi/ĝi/ili as the embedded subject. Si cannot supply its own antecedent.
Eva diris, ke ŝi jam sendis la raporton.
Eva said that she had already sent the report.
The sentence can be ambiguous if another woman is salient. Eva diris, ke si... is not the repair. Repeat the name or add context:
Eva diris, ke Eva mem jam sendis la raporton, sed Marta ne sendis la sian.
Eva said that Eva herself had already sent the report, but Marta had not sent hers.
This is intentionally explicit. La sian in the second clause points to its subject Marta.
Reported questions
A yes–no question becomes a ĉu-clause; a content question keeps its KI-word. Pronouns still shift by reference.
Leo demandis al Marta: ‘Ĉu vi kuniros kun mi?’
Leo asked Marta, ‘Will you come with me?’
Leo demandis, ĉu Marta kuniros kun li.
Leo asked whether Marta would go with him.
If Marta later checks the question with Leo, both people become current speech participants:
— Ĉu vi demandis, ĉu mi kuniros kun vi? — Jes, ĝuste tion mi demandis.
— Did you ask whether I would go with you? — Yes, that is exactly what I asked.
The grammar of question clauses is treated on Reported Questions; the pronoun principle remains the same.
Explicit nouns prevent reference collisions
Two third-person participants may collapse into identical pronouns after reporting. Use names when li/ŝi would have more than one plausible antecedent.
Nora diris al Klara, ke Klara ricevos la rezultojn vespere.
Nora told Klara that Klara would receive the results in the evening.
Nora diris al Klara, ke ŝi ricevos... is grammatical but ambiguous. Repeating Klara is better than expecting the nearest noun to win; Esperanto has no such automatic rule.
Common Mistakes
1. Changing every mi to third person
❌ Li diris al vi, ke li venos morgaŭ.
Wrong if I am reporting my own earlier promise: li changes the speaker.
✅ Mi diris al vi, ke mi venos morgaŭ.
I told you that I would come tomorrow.
2. Copying an original vi after the addressee changes
❌ Marta diris al Leo, ke ŝi telefonos al vi.
Wrong when an outsider reports Marta's promise to Leo: vi would mean the current listener.
✅ Marta diris al Leo, ke ŝi telefonos al li.
Marta told Leo that she would call him.
3. Using si as the embedded subject
❌ Eva diris, ke si estas preta.
Incorrect: si cannot be a subject.
✅ Eva diris, ke ŝi estas preta.
Eva said that she was ready.
4. Treating sia as “the reporter's possessive”
❌ Karlo raportis, ke Maria jam telefonis al siaj gepatroj.
Wrong for Karlo's parents: siaj refers to embedded subject Maria.
✅ Karlo raportis, ke Maria jam telefonis al liaj gepatroj.
Karlo reported that Maria had already called his parents.
5. Leaving two identical third-person candidates unresolved
❌ Nora diris al Klara, ke ŝi gajnis la premion.
Ambiguous: ŝi can refer to Nora or Klara.
✅ Nora diris al Klara, ke Klara gajnis la premion.
Nora told Klara that Klara had won the prize.
Key Takeaways
Reported speech does not apply a fixed “first person becomes third person” substitution. Rebuild the speaker, addressee, and third-party roles in the current conversation, then assign subject, object, and possessive forms. Keep si/sia bound to the subject of their own clause, never use si as a subject, and repeat names when two participants would otherwise collapse into the same pronoun.
Now practice Esperanto
Reading grammar gets you part of the way. The exercises are where it sticks — free, no signup needed.
Start learning Esperanto →Related Topics
- Pronoun Reference and AmbiguityB1 — Track pronoun antecedents through person, number, case, reflexive binding, and strategic repetition when context allows more than one reading.
- The Possessive SiaA1 — Use sia for a third-person subject's own possession and make it agree with the possessed noun.
- Clause Boundaries for SiA1 — Track si and sia within finite clauses so that reflexive reference stays with the correct local subject.
- Reported StatementsB1 — Report speech, thought, perception, and written information with finite ke-clauses while preserving the original tense and adjusting viewpoint clearly.
- Reported QuestionsB2 — Embed yes-no and content questions with ĉu or a ki-correlative while preserving finite clause structure, tense, case, and viewpoint.
- Reported CommandsB2 — Report commands, requests, advice, and proposals with ke plus the volitive, or with controlled infinitive constructions where appropriate.