Reporting what someone said is straightforward when the original statement is a simple sentence. But when the original statement is itself a conditional ("if X, then Y"), learners face a puzzle: does the si-clause shift tenses the way other verbs do in indirect speech? The answer depends on the type of conditional, and the logic is satisfyingly consistent once you see the pattern.
This page covers the transformation of each conditional type when placed inside dijo que, me contó que, explicó que, and other reporting verbs.
The general rule of backshifting
In indirect speech, when the reporting verb is in the past (dijo, contó, explicó), verbs in the reported clause typically shift one step back in time:
| Direct speech | Reported speech |
|---|---|
| present indicative (llueve) | imperfect indicative (llovía) |
| future (lloverá) | conditional (llovería) |
| present perfect (ha llovido) | pluperfect (había llovido) |
| preterite (llovió) | pluperfect (había llovido) or stays |
| imperfect (llovía) | stays (llovía) |
| conditional (llovería) | stays (llovería) |
| imperfect subjunctive (lloviera) | stays (lloviera) |
| pluperfect subjunctive (hubiera llovido) | stays (hubiera llovido) |
The last four rows are the key insight: forms that are already "past-aligned" have nowhere further to shift. They stay put.
Type 1 conditionals: they shift
A Type 1 conditional uses the present indicative in the si-clause and the future (or present) in the result clause. Both of these forms can shift.
Direct speech:
Reported speech:
Dijo que si llovía, no iba.
He said that if it rained, he wasn't going.
The present (llueve) becomes imperfect (llovía). The present (voy) becomes imperfect (iba).
Another example with future in the result clause:
Si tengo tiempo, te llamaré.
If I have time, I'll call you.
Dijo que si tenía tiempo, me llamaría.
He said that if he had time, he would call me.
The present (tengo) becomes imperfect (tenía). The future (llamaré) becomes conditional (llamaría).
Dijo que si aprobaba el examen, iba a celebrar.
She said that if she passed the exam, she was going to celebrate.
Type 2 conditionals: they stay the same
A Type 2 conditional uses the imperfect subjunctive in the si-clause and the simple conditional in the result clause. Both forms are already at the "past limit."
Direct speech:
Si tuviera dinero, viajaría.
If I had money, I would travel.
Reported speech:
Dijo que si tuviera dinero, viajaría.
He said that if he had money, he would travel.
Nothing changes. The imperfect subjunctive (tuviera) stays. The conditional (viajaría) stays.
Me contó que si fuera más joven, estudiaría medicina.
He told me that if he were younger, he would study medicine.
Si pudiéramos, nos mudaríamos a la costa.
If we could, we'd move to the coast.
Dijeron que si pudieran, se mudarían a la costa.
They said that if they could, they'd move to the coast.
Type 3 conditionals: they also stay the same
A Type 3 conditional uses the pluperfect subjunctive (hubiera + past participle) and the conditional perfect (habría + past participle). Both are already maximally past. No shift occurs.
Direct speech:
Si hubiera sabido, habría venido.
If I had known, I would have come.
Reported speech:
Dijo que si hubiera sabido, habría venido.
He said that if he had known, he would have come.
Identical. The pluperfect subjunctive (hubiera sabido) and conditional perfect (habría venido) are immovable.
Si hubiéramos llegado antes, habríamos conseguido entradas.
If we had arrived earlier, we would have gotten tickets.
Me dijo que si hubiéramos llegado antes, habríamos conseguido entradas.
She told me that if we had arrived earlier, we would have gotten tickets.
Mixed conditionals: they stay the same too
Mixed conditionals combine elements of Types 2 and 3. Since both the imperfect subjunctive and the conditional are already at the past limit, nothing shifts.
Direct speech:
Si hubiera estudiado más, tendría un mejor trabajo.
If I had studied more, I would have a better job (now).
Reported speech:
Dijo que si hubiera estudiado más, tendría un mejor trabajo.
He said that if he had studied more, he would have a better job.
No change. The pluperfect subjunctive in the si-clause and the simple conditional in the result clause both remain.
Complete comparison table
| Type | Direct speech | Reported speech | Change? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type 1 | Si llueve, no voy. | Dijo que si llovía, no iba. | Yes: present to imperfect |
| Type 1 (future) | Si tengo tiempo, te llamaré. | Dijo que si tenía tiempo, me llamaría. | Yes: present to imperfect, future to conditional |
| Type 2 | Si tuviera dinero, viajaría. | Dijo que si tuviera dinero, viajaría. | No change |
| Type 3 | Si hubiera sabido, habría venido. | Dijo que si hubiera sabido, habría venido. | No change |
| Mixed | Si hubiera estudiado, tendría mejor trabajo. | Dijo que si hubiera estudiado, tendría mejor trabajo. | No change |
Reporting como si
The como si ("as if") construction always uses the imperfect subjunctive or the pluperfect subjunctive. Since both forms are already at the past limit, they do not shift in reported speech.
Direct speech:
Habla como si supiera todo.
He talks as if he knew everything.
Reported speech:
Dijo que hablaba como si supiera todo.
She said he talked as if he knew everything.
The main verb habla (present) shifts to hablaba (imperfect), but the como si clause stays in the imperfect subjunctive (supiera). See Como Si for more on this construction.
Actuaba como si no hubiera pasado nada.
He acted as if nothing had happened.
Me contó que actuaba como si no hubiera pasado nada.
She told me that he acted as if nothing had happened.
Both actuaba and hubiera pasado are already past forms, so nothing changes.
Common mistakes
Trying to backshift Type 2
Dijo que si tuviera dinero, viajaría.
Correct: no shift needed.
Dijo que si hubiera tenido dinero, habría viajado.
Wrong intention: this accidentally converts a Type 2 into a Type 3, changing the meaning from 'if he had money (now)' to 'if he had had money (back then).'
Learners sometimes feel that a past reporting verb "demands" a further-past form. It does not. Shifting tuviera to hubiera tenido changes a hypothetical present into a counterfactual past.
Confusing reported Type 1 with Type 2
After backshifting, a reported Type 1 and a direct Type 2 can look similar:
Dijo que si llovía, no iba. (reported Type 1)
He said that if it rained, he wasn't going. (originally a real possibility)
Dijo que si lloviera, no iría. (reported Type 2)
He said that if it rained, he wouldn't go. (originally hypothetical)
The difference: llovía (imperfect indicative) vs. lloviera (imperfect subjunctive). The indicative signals something the speaker considered plausible; the subjunctive signals something the speaker considered unlikely.
Reporting with other verbs
The same rules apply regardless of the reporting verb:
Me escribió que si tenía tiempo, me visitaría.
He wrote me that if he had time, he would visit me. (reported Type 1)
Le explicó que si pudiera, la ayudaría.
He explained to her that if he could, he would help her. (Type 2, unchanged)
Nos avisó que si hubiéramos llegado antes, habríamos podido entrar.
He warned us that if we had arrived earlier, we would have been able to get in. (Type 3, unchanged)
Practice: convert to reported speech
Try converting these direct-speech conditionals. Cover the answers and check after.
'Si termino temprano, te llamo.' Dijo que si terminaba temprano, me llamaba.
He said that if he finished early, he'd call me. (Type 1 shifts)
'Si pudiera elegir, viviría en Buenos Aires.' Dijo que si pudiera elegir, viviría en Buenos Aires.
She said that if she could choose, she'd live in Buenos Aires. (Type 2, no change)
'Si hubiera tenido carro, habría ido.' Dijo que si hubiera tenido carro, habría ido.
He said that if he had had a car, he would have gone. (Type 3, no change)
Summary
- Type 1 shifts: present indicative becomes imperfect indicative; future becomes conditional.
- Types 2, 3, and mixed do not shift: their verb forms (imperfect subjunctive, conditional, pluperfect subjunctive, conditional perfect) are already at the deepest level of the tense system.
- Como si does not shift: the imperfect and pluperfect subjunctive are immovable.
- Do not artificially backshift Type 2 into Type 3 — it changes the meaning.
- Watch the distinction between reported Type 1 (si llovía) and direct Type 2 (si lloviera).
For the individual conditional types, see Type 1, Type 2, Type 3, and Mixed. For como si, see Como Si.
Related Topics
- Type 1: ProbableB1 — Use a present-tense si-clause with a future, imperative, or present result clause for situations that are likely to happen.
- Type 2: ImprobableB2 — Pair an imperfect-subjunctive si-clause with a conditional result clause for hypothetical or unlikely present situations.
- Type 3: Contrary-to-Fact PastC1 — Use the pluperfect subjunctive with the conditional perfect to talk about past situations that didn't actually happen.
- Mixed ConditionalsC1 — Combine past and present in a single conditional to talk about how what didn't happen then still shapes how things are now.
- Como Si (As If)B2 — The expression como si always takes the imperfect or pluperfect subjunctive — never the present.
- Sequence of TensesC1 — How the tense of the main clause decides which subjunctive tense belongs in the subordinate clause.