universal truth speech

• _Grammar Rules
• __Parts of Speech
• __Narration
• _Vocabulary
• __One Word Substitution
• __Etymology

Telegram Button

Direct and indirect speech of universal truth, habitual action, historical event/fact with examples | reported speech habitual actions.

Not sure how to change the narration of Universal Truth, Habitual Actions, Historical Events ?

That's what we are going to talk about here. 

Table of Contents

• Introduction

Universal Truth

• Habitual Actions
• Historical Events

So all you have to do is only to remember a  simple rule,  that is -

When the reported clause/statement of a direct speech is a universal truth speech or any historical event or a habitual action (a part of the daily routine), then the tense in the indirect speech doesn’t change,  no matter in whatever tense the reporting verb  ( say/said ) is.

Let's say there is a reported statement the teacher said, "The sun rises in the east."

We know that the reported statement  changes according to the tense of the reporting verb    in  the indirect speech.

But in this case, the reported speech  “The sun rises in the east”  won't change though the reporting verb 'said' is in the past.

It happens because, the statement is a description of a natural incident , and so, it is universally true. It means, you can never alter the speech as you can't alter the natural incident.

You cannot say that the sun rose in the east . If you say this you 'll mean that the sun rose in the east today and often, it rises in other directions . But it has been rising  in the east from millions of years ago and will continue to do so millions of years after.

Isn’t it?

For the  same reason, in  habitual actions and historical events, the tense is not changed.

Are you curious to know how it happens? 

Continue reading...

Indirect Narration of 

Here we are going to see that the reported statement of each direct narration is a universal truth , that is a statement universally accepted as true.

Universal truth speeches include - any  moral principle, natural phenomena, mathematical equation, scientific statement   etc.

Have a look at the examples  –

 I. Moral Principles and Proverbs: 

Direct – Mr. Sen said, “Truth wins always.”

Indirect – Mr. Sen said that Truth wins always.

...Truth won always. ❌

Direct – “Honesty is the best policy.” They said.

Indirect – They said that honesty is the best policy.

Direct –  The teacher said to us, “ Man is mortal. ”

Indirect –  The teacher told us that  Man is mortal .

... man  was  mortal. ❌

Direct –  “An apple a day keeps the doctors away.” My grand father said with an apple in his hand.

Indirect –  My grand father said with an apple in his hand that an apple a day keeps the doctors away. 

Direct –  She said, “A drowning man will clutch at a straw.”

Indirect –  She said that a drowning man will clutch at a straw.

Direct –  I said, “Cleanliness is next to godliness.”

Indirect –  I said that cleanliness is next to godliness.

Direct –  The lady said, “An empty vessel makes much noise.”

Indirect –  The lady said that an empty vessel makes much noise.

Direct –  The leader said, “Where there is will there is a way.”

Indirect –  The leader said that where there is will there is a way.

Direct –  I said, “A cat has nine lives.”

Indirect –  I said that a cat has nine lives.

Direct –  The man said, “A barking dog seldom bites.”

Indirect –  The man said that a barking dog seldom bites.

Direct –  His wife said to him, “A bad workman always blames his tools.”

Indirect –  His wife told him that a bad workman always blames his tools.

 II.   Natural Phenomena: 

 Colour – 

Direct – He said to me, “Grass is green.”

Indirect – He told me that grass is green

Direct – Harry said, “Milk is white.”

Indirect – Harry said that milk is white.

Direct – She said to me, “Coal is black.”

Indirect – She told me that coal is black.

Direct – The mother said to the baby, “Sky is blue.”

Indirect – The mother told the baby that sky is blue.

Direct – She said to us, “The colour of blood is red.”

Indirect – She told us that the colour of human blood is red.

Direct – I said, “Water is colourless.”

Indirect – I said that water is colourless.

 Taste – 

Direct – “Water is tasteless.” Said the the teacher.

Indirect – The teacher said that water is tasteless.

Direct –  “Honey tastes sweet.” Said the child.

Indirect –  The child said that honey tastes sweet.

 Others – 

Direct – The teacher said, “The sun gives us light.”

Indirect – The teacher said that the sun gives us light.

Direct – Jack said, “The dog is a faithful animal.”

Indirect – Jack said that the dog is a faithful animal.

Direct –  The student said, “The sun reses in the east.”

Indirect –  The student said that the sun rises in the east.

 III.   Mathematical Equations: 

Direct – “Five and five make ten.” Said the girl.

Indirect – The girl said that five and five make four.

Direct – “Three and six make nine.” She said.

Indirect – She said that three and six make nine.

Direct –  The mother said to the child, “If we multiply ten with five, we get fifty.”

Indirect –  The mother taught the child that if we multiply ten with five, we get fifty.

Direct –  The mother said to the child, “Three times eight is twenty-four.”

Indirect –  The mother taught the child that three times eight is twenty-four.

( Three times eight is twenty-four => 8×3 = 24 )

 IV.   Scientific Statements: 

Direct – The teacher said to the children, “Water freezes into ice below 0°C.”

Indirect – The teacher told the children that water freezes into ice below 0°C.

Direct – The teacher said, “Acid reacts with a base to form salt.”

Indirect – The teacher said that Acid reacts with a base to form salt.

 V.    Other - 

Direct – I said, “The leaning tower of Pisa is a wonder.”

Indirect – I said that the leaning tower of Pisa is a wonder.

Direct –  He said, “ The earth moves around the sun. ”

Indirect –  He said that the earth moves around the sun.

... moved  around the sun. ❌

[Related:  Direct and Indirect Speech rules for Vocative word or Addressing word .]

Read more:  100+ Narration change Exercises .

Habitual Action

**Habitual actions are those actions that are performed by a person regularly.

For a speech denoting a habitual action, words/phrases like every, every morning, every night, every afternoon, every week, every month, every year, daily, once a day, once a week etc. are used in the reported speech.

E.g. –

Direct –  Ram said, "We play cricket everyday ."

Indirect – Ram said that they play cricket everyday.

... played  cricket everyday.  ❌

Direct – He said to me, “I go to school everyday .”

Indirect – He told me that he goes to school everyday.

... went to school everyday. ❌

Direct – Mohan said to me, “My grandfather does yoga every morning .”

Indirect – Mohan told me that his grandfather does yoga every morning.

... did yoga every morning. ❌

Direct – She said to the boy, “What do you play every afternoon ?”

Indirect – She asked the boy what does he play every afternoon.

... what did he play... ❌

Direct –  I said to them, “I watch movies daily .”

Indirect – I told them that I watch movies daily.

...  I watched ... ❌

Direct – She said to me, “Kalpit comes here once a day .”

Indirect – she told me that Kalpit goes there once a day.

... went there... ❌

Direct –  Rihana said to me, “We play chess  once a week .”

Indirect –  Rihana told me that they play chess once a week.

... played chess ... ❌

Direct –  The lady said, “He calls me once in a blue moon.”

Indirect –  the lady said that he calls her once in a blue moon.

... called her ... ❌

Direct –  They said to the man, “The dog barks every afternoon.”

Indirect –  They told the man that the dog barks every afternoon. 

... dog barked ... ❌

Related: Direct and Indirect Speech - WH Questions .  

Historical Event

One of the basic rules for changing the narration suggests that - when the reporting verb and the reported speech both are in past tense , then the indirect speech will be in past perfect tense .

But, in case the reported speech is a historical fact , the aforementioned rule is not followed. 

Rather, the reported speech is written in the indirect as it is (in past tense)

Direct – Our teacher said, “The French Revolution had started in 1789.”

Indirect – Our teacher said that the French Revolution had started in 1789.

... had been started ... ❌

Direct – I said to them, “Mahatma Gandhi died on 30th January, 1948.”

Indirect – I told them that Mahatma Gandhi died on 30th January, 1948.

... had died ... ❌

Direct – He said to us, “Srigupta founded the Gupta Dynasty.”

Indirect – He told us that Srigupta Founded the Gupta Dynasty.

... had founded ... ❌

Direct – Our teacher said to us, “The Russian Revolution took place in 1917.”

Indirect – Our teacher told us that the Russian Revolution took place in 1917.

... had taken place ... ❌

Direct – I said to him, “The English defeated the French in the Battle of Swalley.”

Indirect – I told him that the English Defeated the French in the Battle of Swalley.

... had defeated ... ❌

Direct –  He said to us, “The English came to India after the Portuguese.”

Indirect –  He told us that the English came to India after the Portuguese.

... had come to ... ❌

Direct –  Ammie said to us, “Hitler first attacked Poland.”

Indirect –  Ammie told us that  Hitler first attacked Poland.

... had attacked ...  ❌

Direct – The student said,  “The  Industrial Revolution occurred during the period from around 1760 to about 1820–1840. ”

Indirect –  The student said that t he  Industrial Revolution occurred during the period from around 1760 to about 1820–1840.

Read more : How to Change the Narration of Different Sentences (Basic Level of Changing the Narration) .

Now you know everything about how to change the narration of Universal Truth, Habitual Actions and Historical Events .

Thank you...

Posted by Souvik

You may like these posts, post a comment.

it is a hard thing to be very poor. What about this one?? What will be its narration

Yeah. It is a universally true speech. So, you needn't change anything.

It was really helpful

He said to me "do women tend to live longer than men in this world?" Convert it please

She said, "I know you. You are Sam and you live next door." How will I convert to indirect speech?

Please give the examples of molarity in direct and indirect speech

Highly useful

Leave a comment

• Privacy Policy

Most Popular

100+ Narration Change Exercises with Answers | Direct and Indirect Speech Exercises

Change the Narration (Advanced Level Rules) | Direct speech to Indirect Speech

150+ Narration Change Exercises (Part - 5)

• Conditionals 3
• Contractions 1
• Current News 1
• English Mock Test 6
• error correction 1
• Etymology 1
• Geography 1
• Grammar Rules 32
• Indian Polity 1
• Narration 13
• One word substitution 1
• Parts of Speech 2
• phrasal verb 1
• previous questions 1
• Subject-Verb Agreement 2
• Traditional GK 2
• Transformation of Sentences 4
• Vocabulary 11

Popular Posts

Menu Footer Widget

Contact form.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience and security.

Enhanced Page Navigation

• William Faulkner - Banquet speech

William Faulkner

Banquet speech.

William Faulkner’s speech at the Nobel Banquet at the City Hall in Stockholm, December 10, 1950 *

Ladies and gentlemen,

I feel that this award was not made to me as a man, but to my work – a life’s work in the agony and sweat of the human spirit, not for glory and least of all for profit, but to create out of the materials of the human spirit something which did not exist before. So this award is only mine in trust. It will not be difficult to find a dedication for the money part of it commensurate with the purpose and significance of its origin. But I would like to do the same with the acclaim too, by using this moment as a pinnacle from which I might be listened to by the young men and women already dedicated to the same anguish and travail, among whom is already that one who will some day stand here where I am standing.

Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only the question: When will I be blown up? Because of this, the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat.

He must learn them again. He must teach himself that the basest of all things is to be afraid; and, teaching himself that, forget it forever, leaving no room in his workshop for anything but the old verities and truths of the heart, the old universal truths lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed – love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice. Until he does so, he labors under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, of victories without hope and, worst of all, without pity or compassion. His griefs grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes not of the heart but of the glands.

Until he relearns these things, he will write as though he stood among and watched the end of man. I decline to accept the end of man. It is easy enough to say that man is immortal simply because he will endure: that when the last dingdong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening, that even then there will still be one more sound: that of his puny inexhaustible voice, still talking.

I refuse to accept this. I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet’s, the writer’s, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past. The poet’s voice need not merely be the record of man, it can be one of the props, the pillars to help him endure and prevail.

* The speech was apparently revised by the author for publication in The Faulkner Reader. These minor changes, all of which improve the address stylistically have been incorporated here.

** Disclaimer Every effort has been made by the publisher to credit organizations and individuals with regard to the supply of audio files. Please notify the publishers regarding corrections. Copyright © The Nobel Foundation 1950

Nobel Prizes and laureates

Nobel prizes 2023.

Explore prizes and laureates

Columns > Published on August 12th, 2020

Storyville: Universal Truths Can Help Your Readers Relate

In my classes I talk about a lot of different ways to structure your stories and make them work. I talk about Freytag a lot—that narrative hook, inciting incident, exposition, rising tension, internal and external conflicts, leading to a resolution, change, and denouement. That’s very important. I also talk about writing across three levels to really appeal to the widest readership:

• on a physical level, with the action, moving the chess pieces around, tapping into the external conflict, being entertaining;
• on an emotional level, going deeper, understanding the internal conflicts, the motivation as well as hopes and fears;
• on a mental and spiritual level, the more complex insights, allowing for epiphany and deeper understanding.

That’s body, mind, and soul right there. I also talk about large brush strokes and unique details—and that’s where I think the universal truths come in.

What universal truths can do is leave room for the reader to relate, allow them to find empathy and sympathy, and keep them nodding their head, as you try to get an emotional reaction out of them. It’s hard to find things in the universe that are TRUE, but I’ll try to list some examples below to show you how universal truths can help to make your stories a more rewarding experience, and allow your audience to embrace your narrative, while they (hopefully) have some visceral reactions. Let’s dig in.

I think that love is probably one of the strongest emotions you can write about, and one of the best ways to get your readers to react. Hopefully, everyone reading has fallen in love at some point in their life, so they can relate to that. But there are all kinds of love:

• familial love—how you feel about your family;
• romantic love—your soul mate or significant other;
• lustful love—the passion and sensuality;
• playful love—that of friendship and common interests;
• and the love of certain things—whether it’s pepperoni pizza, Radiohead, or freshly cut grass.

There is so much here. Would you be surprised if I told that a HUGE number of stories have love as the internal conflict? How many stories, books, television shows, and films have an internal conflict that basically boils down to wanting to be loved, seen, valued, and respected? Everything from Batman and Midsommar , to Breaking Bad and Of Mice and Men , to Come Closer and Moonlight . This is a great universal truth to work with. Tap into your own life and experience, and then expand it through the world around you—via friends, family, books, and film.  

Another universal truth is loss. We have all lost something (or someone) in our lives. It could be the loss of a valued job, the loss of a good friend, the loss of a great love, or the loss of somebody to death. So when you write about loss, no, your reader has not been to Mars, or shot through black holes, or battled werewolves in the desert (most likely) but they can understand the sacrifice of making a decision that will end up in loss or death, to benefit a loved one, or the death of one for the good of the many. Much like love, when we tap into that feeling of loss, we tap into what it feels like not just to lose, to fail, but to have something be gone forever. Sometimes it’s us, sometimes it’s them. I think of my story, “Repent,” and the decision the father has to make, and what the price is he pays to save his son. It’s that LOSS that really resonates. Not just to all of the fathers out there reading, but any parent, or any human being that can understand the ultimate sacrifice for somebody else. I think of films like The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind , or Leon the Professional , or (depending on how you interpret the ending), Inception . We’ve all lost, so this is a good truth to work with, in many ways, the opposite sensation of love, right?

I’ll build on loss with death. I know that death is used way too much in fiction. There are fates far worse than death, right? But death is the ultimate loss. When it comes to universal truths, look at your life and think back to all of those moments you’ve experienced, starting with the first. For me, it was witnessing a man plunge to his death off the St. Louis Arch when I was 13, that was my first brush with death in the real world. It was horrible, so much blood—a sheen as wide as a leg of the arch. Then it was losing a friend in college, who stole my fake ID, went down to the bars, and fell over a railing, drowning in a creek, in a foot of water. Then it was my grandma, who I loved very much, the only person in my family who would actually read my writing in college, so very supportive and kind. Later, my friend Martin would die prematurely at the age of 54, and would end up haunting me, his shadow at the end of my bed—so angry. My father passed away a few years ago of cancer, but they kept him on life support until I could come down from Chicago to St. Louis to say goodbye. I yelled at him, I thanked him for all that he did for me, and I told him I loved him. I cried. Somewhere in here, in my examples, maybe there is something that resonates with you. But be cautious of using death as a crutch.

So whether your family is a good one or a dysfunctional mess—it’s all we have, right? I had somebody recently ask me why so many of my stories were about families, and I thought, “No, that isn’t right.” Then I looked at my work and was surprised by how many DID have a strong family component—the previously mentioned “Repent,” for example, as well as “How Not to Come Undone,” “Chrysalis,” “Golden Sun” (in The Best Horror of the Year, co-written with Michael Wehunt, Damien Angelica Walters, and Kristi DeMeester), and “The Offering on the Hill,” for example. So when you talk about family, people know where you are coming from. If you have a more traditional nuclear family—with a mom, dad, sister, and/or brother—that’s one way to show it. Not to mention grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. But you could also have two dads, two moms, there could be divorce, there could be an only child, or seven siblings. There are so many ways this family structure can be explored—in the successes, or more likely, the failures, abuses, and dysfunction.

This is a good one for horror, especially, but EVERY genre has conflicts, that we build into those internal and external conflicts. There should be anxiety, fear, worry, and uncertainty. What you can tap into are broad fears. We mentioned loss and death, but you can play around with so many fears. Not just specifically like in a fear of spiders, water, open spaces, mirrors, or sharp objects. But broader, deeper, more philosophical fears—the fear of the uncanny, the fear of impermanence, the fear of futility. So when you pair up a couple of these it can get really interesting. What is the fear in cosmic horror? I think it’s the fear that we are so inconsequential, that we have no chance in battling old gods, or ancient aliens, or something we can’t even comprehend. So having the evil, the monster, be something that cannot be defeated? That’s terrifying. Now, what usually happens is we FIND that Achilles heel, but that’s the story then, right? When I write a horror story I try to tap into so many different fears—that the evil is already here, inside the house (or your mind, or body); that the woods, the water, the beach are not safe places, and what’s coming you can’t anticipate or comprehend, but I’ll give you clues anyway; that the horror is you, and what you are about to do is either necessary or incredibly selfish, but it’s going to happen anyway, and how do you feel about that, how can you get out? It’s possession, it’s spirits, it’s the uncanny, it’s the unknown…and then it’s the KNOWN, oh GOD why did I want to know, WHY didn’t I run faster, and what the hell is that?

IN CONCLUSION

This is not an exhaustive list, it’s probably just the tip of the iceberg, but I tried to write about some universal truths that I not only use in my work, but think may be common in yours as well.  So when it comes to your stories, think about those truths that have broad appeal, but are also personal to you, and your life. That balance between using a large brush to slap on the paint that is your truth, with the scalpel that you use to sculpt, and trim, and hone the emotions, trimming away the fat—that can be a powerful experience. Best of luck!

About the author

Richard Thomas is the award-winning author of seven books: three novels— Disintegration and Breaker (Penguin Random House Alibi), as well as Transubstantiate (Otherworld Publications); three short story collections— Staring into the Abyss (Kraken Press), Herniated Roots (Snubnose Press), and Tribulations (Cemetery Dance); and one novella in The Soul Standard (Dzanc Books). With over 140 stories published, his credits include The Best Horror of the Year (Volume Eleven), Cemetery Dance (twice) , Behold!: Oddities, Curiosities and Undefinable Wonders (Bram Stoker winner), PANK, storySouth, Gargoyle, Weird Fiction Review, Midwestern Gothic, Gutted: Beautiful Horror Stories, Qualia Nous, Chiral Mad (numbers 2-4), and Shivers VI (with Stephen King and Peter Straub). He has won contests at ChiZine and One Buck Horror, has received five Pushcart Prize nominations, and has been long-listed for Best Horror of the Year six times. He was also the editor of four anthologies: The New Black and Exigencies (Dark House Press), The Lineup: 20 Provocative Women Writers (Black Lawrence Press) and Burnt Tongues (Medallion Press) with Chuck Palahniuk. He has been nominated for the Bram Stoker, Shirley Jackson, and Thriller awards. In his spare time he is a columnist at Lit Reactor and Editor-in-Chief at Gamut Magazine . His agent is Paula Munier at Talcott Notch. For more information visit www.whatdoesnotkillme.com .

Similar Columns

Explore other columns from across the blog.

Book Brawl: Geek Love vs. Water for Elephants

In Book Brawl, two books that are somehow related will get in the ring and fight it out for the coveted honor of being declared literary champion. Two books enter. One book leaves. This month,...

The 10 Best Sci-Fi Books That Should Be Box Office Blockbusters

It seems as if Hollywood is entirely bereft of fresh material. Next year, three different live-action Snow White films will be released in the States. Disney is still terrorizing audiences with t...

Books Without Borders: Life after Liquidation

Though many true book enthusiasts, particularly in the Northwest where locally owned retailers are more common than paperback novels with Fabio on the cover, would never have set foot in a mega-c...

From Silk Purses to Sows’ Ears

Photo via Freeimages.com Moviegoers whose taste in cinema consists entirely of keeping up with the Joneses, or if they’re confident in their ignorance, being the Joneses - the middlebrow, the ...

Cliche, the Literary Default

Original Photo by Gerhard Lipold As writers, we’re constantly told to avoid the cliché. MFA programs in particular indoctrinate an almost Pavlovian shock response against it; workshops in...

A Recap Of... The Wicked Universe

Out of Oz marks Gregory Maguire’s fourth and final book in the series beginning with his brilliant, beloved Wicked. Maguire’s Wicked universe is richly complex, politically contentious, and fille...

Try Reedsy's novel writing masterclass — 100% free

Sign up for a free video lesson and learn how to make readers care about your main character.

1 million authors trust the professionals on Reedsy. Come meet them.

Susan Thomas Springer

• Awards & Kudos
• Blog: Sentences We Love

Faulkner’s Universal Truths

The writer “must teach himself that the basest of all things is to be afraid: and, teaching himself that, forget it forever, leaving no room in his workshop for anything but the old verities and truths of the heart, the universal truths lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed–love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice.”

That is an excerpt from William Faulkner’s acceptance speech for his 1950 Nobel Prize. For writers, the whole speech is worth re-reading to reach full understanding. It is both inspiring and daunting.

Faulkner’s point is that in writing about these universal truths, the writer helps the reader endure. He went on to say that without these truths, “He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, and victories without hope and worst of all, without pity or compassion. His griefs grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes not of the heart but of the glands.”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Proudly powered by WordPress

Reason and Meaning

Philosophical reflections on life, death, and the meaning of life, summary of faulkner’s nobel prize speech.

William Faulkner’s speech at the Nobel Banquet at the City Hall in Stockholm, December 10, 1950 *  (My brief summary followed by the transcript of the speech.)

Faulkner’s Main Ideas – Good writers want to create something new, but this is difficult. And existential threats (especially the possibility of nuclear war) make the writer’s job—to uncover the secrets of the human heart—even harder. Yet writers must put aside their fear, and remember good things like love and compassion and sacrifice. If they forget the good, they write of despair and of the impending doom of our species. But Faulkner believes that we will survive and prosper. So the role of the writer is to inspire humanity by reminding them of what we are capable of. In this way the writer helps us to “endure and prevail.”

Ladies and gentlemen,

I feel that this award was not made to me as a man, but to my work—a life’s work in the agony and sweat of the human spirit, not for glory and least of all for profit, but to create out of the materials of the human spirit something which did not exist before. So this award is only mine in trust. It will not be difficult to find a dedication for the money part of it commensurate with the purpose and significance of its origin. But I would like to do the same with the acclaim too, by using this moment as a pinnacle from which I might be listened to by the young men and women already dedicated to the same anguish and travail, among whom is already that one who will someday stand here where I am standing.

Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only the question: When will I be blown up? Because of this, the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat.

He must learn them again. He must teach himself that the basest of all things is to be afraid; and, teaching himself that, forget it forever, leaving no room in his workshop for anything but the old verities and truths of the heart, the old universal truths lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed—love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice. Until he does so, he labors under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, of victories without hope and, worst of all, without pity or compassion. His griefs grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes not of the heart but of the glands.

Until he relearns these things, he will write as though he stood among and watched the end of man. I decline to accept the end of man. It is easy enough to say that man is immortal simply because he will endure: that when the last dingdong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening, that even then there will still be one more sound: that of his puny inexhaustible voice, still talking.

I refuse to accept this. I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet’s, the writer’s, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past. The poet’s voice need not merely be the record of man, it can be one of the props, the pillars to help him endure and prevail.

___________________________________________________________________

From Nobel Lectures , Literature 1901-1967 , Editor Horst Frenz, Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1969

* The speech was apparently revised by the author for publication in The Faulkner Reader. These minor changes, all of which improve the address stylistically, have been incorporated here.

Share this:

Leave a reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of new posts by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Direct and Indirect sentences of Universal truth with examples and exercise

 In this article, I have explained the direct & Indirect sentences with universal truth with examples and exercises. I have also given the rules of the direct & Indirect sentences with universal truth. I have also explained the changes in pronouns of the sentences with universal truth.

What is universal Truth?

Rules of direct & indirect sentences with universal truth, important changes , reporting speech                             reporting speech, change of pronouns, change of persons.

1st person of reported speech is changed according to the subject of reporting speech 2nd person of reported speech is changed according to the object of reporting speech. 3rd person of the reported speech never changed.

Reported Speech            Reporting Speech

1st person        ---------------          subject, 2nd person      ---------------         object, 3rd person       ----------------        never changed, reporting speech     reported speech, son                          "  123 ".

• 1st person of Reported speech changed according to Subject of Reporting Speech
• 2nd person of the Reported speech changed according to the Object of Reporting Speech
• 3rd Person of Reported never changed.

Related Articles

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter

I am a published author of dozens of books in Pakistan. I have been Editor of The Guide in National University of Modern Languages Islamabad (NUML). I am MPhil in Applied Languistics from University of the Lahore. Being an M.Ed I mostly spend my time training the teachers.

Post a Comment

Contact form.

Quote Investigator®

Tracing Quotations

In a Time of Universal Deceit — Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act

George Orwell? V. G. Venturini? David Hoffman? Charlotte Despard? Antonio Gramsci? Anonymous? Apocryphal?

Question for Quote Investigator: In 1949 George Orwell described a nightmarish future in his classic dystopian novel 1984. There is a popular quotation that is supposed to be contained within this work, but it is not there. Here are three versions:

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act. During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.

Maybe Orwell wrote this expression in an essay or another book, but I have not been able to find it. Could you explore this quote?

Reply from Quote Investigator : Several researchers have attempted to find these words in George Orwell’s oeuvre and have not succeeded. Currently, there is no substantive evidence that he said or wrote this quote. He died in 1950, and the earliest match located by QI appeared in a 1982 book titled “Partners in Ecocide: Australia’s Complicity in the Uranium Cartel” by Venturino Giorgio Venturini. The statement was presented as an epigraph enclosed within quotation marks and attributed to Orwell; however, a specific originating text was not identified. The word “universal” was omitted: 1

“In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”   G. Orwell

The next earliest citation ascribing the saying to Orwell was found by the lexicographical researcher Barry Popik . In the year 1984 the Canadian periodical “Science Dimension” printed a letter from a reader named David Hoffman who was unhappy with an article that discussed the economics of wind energy. Boldface has been added to excerpts: 2

I think George Orwell said in his book 1984 that in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. If Science Dimension is not prepared to explore the future of renewable energy technologies except in inaccurate generalizations, then maybe it should maintain its integrity by avoiding the subject altogether.

Hoffman did not place the saying between quotation marks, and he prefaced his statement with “I think”. Perhaps he was presenting his analysis of the thesis or central point of the novel 1984 instead of an exact quote. Both of the two earliest cites are from individuals connected to environmentalism, but it is not certain whether this cultural subgroup was a transmission vector.

Here are additional selected citations in chronological order.

In 1912 a periodical favoring women’s suffrage called “The Vote: The Organ of the Women’s Freedom League” edited by Charlotte Despard published an editorial titled “The Great Conspiracy” which criticized the political system of the United Kingdom and argued that many people were being deceived and should learn the truth. The editorial contained a statement that was thematically related to the quotation under investigation: 3

The truth! But it is just the truth that cannot be known of the multitude, for truth is revolutionary.

The exposition continued with a claim about the necessity of seeking truth:

Truth has to be sought—in tears, in sorrow, in desperate revolt; here a little and there a little gained, and when gained held against all comers for the sake of humanity and sometimes at the cost of life itself.

In 1919 the political theorist Antonio Gramsci co-wrote an article in the periodical “L’Ordine Nuovo” that contained a thematically related precursor expression: 4

But the concrete and complete solution to the problems of socialist living can only arise from communist practice: collective discussion, which sympathetically alters men’s consciousness, unifies them and inspires them to industrious enthusiasm. To tell the truth, to arrive together at the truth, is a communist and revolutionary act. Unsigned, written by Antonio Gramsci in collaboration with Palmiro Togliatti,  L’Ordine Nuovo, 21 June 1919, Vol. 1, No. 7.

Gramsci’s pronouncement about truth reverberated down the decades. In 1968 the New York Times printed some comments by the theologian Jürgen Moltmann of the University of Tübingen in Germany that invoked Gramsci: 5

By revolution he said that he meant “a change in the very basis of a system—whether of economics, of politics, of morality, or of religion.” He added, “To take up today the search for truth will involve discovering, as Gramsci did, that ‘truth is revolutionary.'”

In 1970 a remark in the journal “Commentary” referred to the potentiality of a revolutionary act in Orwell’s novel 1984; however, the act did not involve truth-telling; it was sexual. Indeed, the plot of the book hinged on an intimate and forbidden relationship between the protagonist, Winston Smith, and a fellow worker, Julia: 6

And to Orwell’s simpleminded assertion, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, that sex could be a revolutionary act, Marcuse would counter, “Repressive desublimation!”—and with some acumen.

In 1980 the abstract of a Ph.D. Dissertation at the University of Washington contained a statement that overlapped with the target quotation, but the word “deceit” was absent: 7

It is through work on the autobiography that Wright articulated for himself the importance of language, recognizing that in a racist society speaking the truth could be a revolutionary act.

In 1982 a book published in Australia called “Partners in Ecocide” credited the saying to George Orwell. This is the earliest example of a strongly-matching expression located by QI as noted previously in this article:

“In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”    G. Orwell

Also in 1982 another partial match was printed in a book about cinema in a section about the film director Jorge Sanjines: 8

Faithful to his theory that “exposing the truth is the most revolutionary cultural act,” he proceeds to document the sterilization of Quechua Indians without their knowledge and consent and to implicate the Bolivian government in its cooperation with American agencies.

In 1984 the periodical “Science Dimension” printed a letter from David Hoffman which contained a strongly-matching phrase as noted previously in this article:

I think George Orwell said in his book 1984 that in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

In 1989 the Australian journal “Overland” printed an interview with the historian and political writer Ross Fitzgerald. The introduction indicated that Fitzgerald had employed the quotation in the past and attributed the words to Orwell: 9

To introduce Ross Fitzgerald here are some words he’s used twice now in introducing his own books. One is a George Orwell quote: “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act”.

In 1994 a psychological study of the novel 1984 referred to a revolutionary act in the text. But, as in the 1970 citation, the revolutionary act was the liaison: 10

His “love affair” is the maximum private love possible between two individuals in 1984, and even that is only possible as a revolutionary act, and must end in torture and death.

In 1999 the Usenet newsgroup alt.books.george-orwell transmitted a message from a participant who noted that bumper stickers with the quotation were being sold: 11

Just back from Telegraph Ave. in Berkeley, where saw the following for sale: Bumpersticker with Orwell quote — IIRC, “In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

In 2008 the journal “Modern Language Studies” printed a book review that ascribed a version of the quotation to Orwell: 12

George Orwell’s celebrated line, “speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act,” has special significance for Americans today.

In conclusion, based on current evidence George Orwell probably did not employ this saying. The quote was attributed to Orwell in its earliest known appearance in 1982. The expression evolved into a handful of variants, but the ascription to Orwell was preserved. The origin is unclear, but it is possible that the statement began as a proposed summary of Orwell’s position, and it was later incorrectly converted into a quotation. This article represents a snapshot of what is known, and QI hopes that other researchers will be able to build on this information in the future.

Acknowledgement: Thanks to Martha Bridegam whose inquiry via twitter about this saying provided the impetus for QI to construct this question and perform this investigation. She also noted the existence of bumper stickers with the quotation in her 1999 Usenet message. Thanks also to Charles who uses the twitter handle @orwellguy and expressed an interest in the saying. Great thanks to John McChesney-Young for obtaining information about the 1982 “Partners in Ecocide” and 1989 “Overland” citations. Special thanks to Barry Popik for his pioneering research. Also great thanks to Victor Steinbok for his efforts.

• 1982, Partners in Ecocide: Australia’s Complicity in the Uranium Cartel by V. G. Venturini (Venturino Giorgio Venturini), (Epigraph facing the title page), Rigmarole Book Publishers, Clifton Hill, Australia. (Verified with scans; thanks to John McChesney-Young and the University of California, Berkeley library system) ↩︎
• 1984/1 [Number 1 of 6 issues in 1984], Science Dimension, Letters, (Letter from David Hoffman, Renewable Energy News, Ottawa, Ont.), Quote Page 5, Column 1 and 2, Published by National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Canada. (Found by Barry Popik in the Google Books database; located and verified on paper by QI) ↩︎
• 1912 June 29, The Vote: The Organ of the Women’s Freedom League, Edited by Charlotte Despard, The Great Conspiracy, Quote Page 174, Column 2, The Minerva Publishing Co., London. (Google News Archive; within the archive the metadata for this periodical uses the label “The Globe’ instead of “The Vote”) ↩︎
• 1977, Antonio Gramsci: Selections from Political Writings (1910-1920): With Additional Texts by Bordiga and Tasca, Selected and edited by Quintin Hoare, (Translated by John Mathews), Quote Page 68, International Publishers, New York. (Verified on paper) ↩︎
• 1968 August 9, Christian Science Monitor, Theologian defines revolution by Louis Garinger, Quote Page 17, Column 1, Boston, Massachusetts. (ProQuest) ↩︎
• 1970 December, Commentary, Volume 50, Issue 6, The Counter-Culture and Its Apologists: 3: Lysergic Götterdämmerung by David L. Bromwich, Quote Page 58 and 59, Published by American Jewish Committee, New York. ↩︎
• 1980, The Problem of Freedom in Richard Wright’s Fiction by Elizabeth June Ciner, University of Washington, (Ph.D. Thesis Dissertation Abstract), (Accessed March 18, 2012 in ProQuest database of abstracts) (ProQuest Dissertations and Theses) ↩︎
• 1982, Third Cinema in the Third World: The Aesthetics of Liberation by Teshome H. Gabriel, (Studies in Cinema, Number 21), Quote Page 21, UMI Research Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan. (Verified with scans) ↩︎
• 1989 August, Overland, Number 115, The Perils of Writing Contemporary Political History in Queensland: An Interview with Phil Dickie and Ross Fitzgerald, Interview conducted by Laurie Müller, Start Page 6, Quote Page 6, Column 1, S. Murray-Smith, Melbourne, Australia. (Verified with scans; thanks to John McChesney-Young and the University of California, Berkeley library system) ↩︎
• 1994, George Orwell’s Guide Through Hell: A Psychological Study of 1984 by Robert Plank, Second Edition, (The Milford Series: Popular Writers of Today, Volume 41), Quote Page 104, Borgo Press, San Bernardino, California. ↩︎
• 1999 July 25, Usenet discussion message, Newsgroup: alt.books.george-orwell, From: Martha Bridegam at sirius.com, Subject: Greeting cards & bumperstickers. (Google Groups Search; Accessed February 24, 2013) link ↩︎
• 2008 Summer, Modern Language Studies, Volume 38, Number 1, Review by Adam Pacton of the book: Killed Cartoons: Casualties from the War on Free Expression by David Wallis, Start Page 85, Quote Page 85, Column 1, Published by Modern Language Studies. (JSTOR) link ↩︎

Socrates Exchange: Are all our beliefs merely opinions, or are there some universal truths?

The Exchange's monthly discussion series is back, and our first question is on truth. Can we be wrong in our beliefs or are all beliefs equally correct, simply because they’re a matter of perspective and the product of different cultures? What evidence do we have either way? Most would say that two plus two equals four or that the Earth revolves around the sun. Fundamentalists in religion and politicians on the fringes take core truths even further by saying that their way is the right and only way. But then there are many who feel that almost anything can be considered as opinion whether its religion, morality, or law. Even scientific ideas like Einstein’s Theory of Relativity or the Ideal Gas Law cannot be 100% proven. If there are core truths, what are they and how can we verify that they are certain?

• Nick Smith , Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of New Hampshire, Advisor to the Socratic Society at UNH and Project Advisor to the Socrates Exchange

Background Reading

It is common to hear people these days making suggestions of relativism in areas such as art, morality and truth. Relativistic rhetoric, such as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," pervades our society.

The relativism debate has been taking place among philosophers since the fifth century B.C. On one side Protagoras famously claimed that when it comes to truth "man is the measure." All things, truth included, find their standard in man. This could be interpreted several ways. One of the most common is a democratic theory of truth - whatever the most human beings consider to be true is the truth. Or it can be applied on the level of individual human beings. Whatever is true for an individual person is the truth. Contrasting this position in the ancient world we find Plato, who believed Protagoras's relativism makes reality unintelligible. In order for humans to gain any knowledge of reality, Plato says, it is necessary that some principles or truths remain absolute independent of historical or cultural setting and the mere opinions of individuals. The most famous example of such a truth is the principle of non-contradiction which states: a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. Thus, a statement is potentially true if it does not contradict itself. For Plato and other absolutist philosophers, truth is gained through logical application of these indubitable truths.

In the contemporary world the debate rages on. Many philosophers, sociologists, and scientists would be inclined to suggest that meaning is never independent of individual human beings or human social groups. For example, Friedrich Nietzsche famously explored how the meaning or truth of moral concepts such as good and evil are relative to the human usage of them. For the ancient Greeks good was a term applied to the noble, strong, and hubristic human beings. With the advent of Christianity in the west the meaning of the term underwent a revolution - the good became the meek, self-sacrificial, and altruistic. Meaning is in this sense socially constructed dependent upon the historical setting and culture in which the truth of something is sought. The catholic church in the contemporary world has set itself up as one of the foremost opponents of this kind of thought. Correct morality never changes as it has its source in the unchanging God.

Even within the field of world religions there is no consensus on this question. In the ancient Hindu texts, the rig Vedas, we find a mediated position which declares the truth is singular but there are many different paths. This position can be seen in the famous Hindu parable of the blind men and the elephant. Five blind men are brought into a room with an elephant and asked to describe the object there. One holds the trunk, another the leg, another the ear, and the descriptions of the object differ, dependent of course on the limited perspective of the individual.

Suggested Readings

For Some Form of Relativism:

Thomas Kuhn - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Friedrich Nietzsche - On the Genealogy of Morality (PDF)

Richard Rorty - Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (In this text Rorty puts forth that neither side in this debate can even communicate with each other because each is operating from within a perspective in which the other sides argument is nonsensical- a perspectival or moderated relativism is hence at work in his very suggestion)

Against Relativism

Plato - Thaeatetus (Early in the dialogue Socrates argues against Protagoras' famous 'man is the measure' relativistic theory)

Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion (An interesting argument from a philosopher of science against relativism of the kind Thomas Kuhn puts forth. Dawkins suggests that relativism weakens the ability of science to pursue the fundamental truths of reality)

John Paul II - Veritatis Splendor (literally, The Splendor of Truth, J.P. II's argument for the reliance of all truth on the absolute will of God)

You make NHPR possible.

NHPR is nonprofit and independent. We rely on readers like you to support the local, national, and international coverage on this website. Your support makes this news available to everyone.

Give today. A monthly donation of $5 makes a real difference.

Direct InDirect - Reported Speech

Direct / InDirect

• What Is An Direct / InDirect
• Rules / Changes
• Home / First - Page

Direct - InDirect / Reported - Speech

• Direct / InDirect Speech
• Reporting / Reported Speech

Definitions:

Indirect / reported speech | rules:.

• Rules of Say
• Rule of That
• Rules of Words
• Rules of Pronoun
• Rules of Pronoun Replacement

2) Rule of - "That"

3) rule of pronoun:.

4) Rule Of - "Words"

5) pronoun replacement.

• If (I,we) --- Get A Subject
• If (You) --- Get An Object
• If (He,She,it,they) --- No Change

How To Make - Examples?

• Step No 1 - First we will take the - She
• Step No 2 - Second we will take the - says to but before we take this we have to see in Rule of Say and in the rules we will see what is the change of says to and the change is tells
• So till now our indirect sentence is She tells
• Step No 3 - Third we will take me so then sentence will become - She tells me
• Step No 4 - Fourth We will replace ( " , ) Comma and quotation mark With That
• Now our sentence is She tells me that
• Step No 5 - Fifth we will see after commna what we have means do we have I , we Or Your because in this case we have I so will take the subject which is she don't be confuse this is from Rule No 5
• Now we the setence is She tells me that she
• Step No 6 - we will take teach but because we are learning present narrations and as you know in present we have the rule of third person singular which means we have she so will add es at the end of the verb and in this example verb is teach so it will become teaches
• Now we have successfully made our sentence Which is (She tells me that she teaches english)

Wh-Words - In Reported Speech:

Definition:.

• Said To --- Ask
• Question changes into Statement
• That --- If /Whether

Rules Explanation:

Imperative - Sentences

• Said To --- Advised , Ordered , Request , Threatened [ According to Situtation ]
• That ---- Not to

Modals - Direct InDirect:

• Can ---- We Use Can To Show - [ Ability , Request , Permission , Possibility ] and if you want to learn can in detail so kindly visit this Can Modal Page
• Will ---- Will is the helping verb of future indefinite tense
• Shall ---- Shall is also the helping verb of future indefinite but the only difference is that we use Shall only with ( I , We )
• Must ---- We Use Must To Show - [ Personal Feeling , Certainty of Work , Importance of Work ]
• May ---- [ Permission , Possibility , Pray ]

So these are the modals which we can use in our narrations and more over if you don't understand any of modal here no need to take tension because i have already made the detail explaination on each modals. if its hard for you to find any of these modals in my website again no tension because i have given the links to particular pages which you can see above

Rules For Modals:

• Can ---- Could
• Will ---- Would
• Shall ---- Should
• Must ---- Had To
• May ---- Might

Universal Truth - InDirect - Reported Speech:

Conclusion:

Oh Yes !!! this is narrration / Direct InDirect / Reporting Speech Reported Speech i hope you liked this and if still you have any problem realted to narrations please ask from me i would love to give you answer of your questions

Something Speical For You :

How to go to Heaven

How to get right with god.

Is there such a thing as absolute truth / universal truth?

For further study, related articles, subscribe to the, question of the week.

Get our Question of the Week delivered right to your inbox!

Universal Truths

Universal truths are fundamental principles or ideas that apply across different cultures, societies, or time periods. They represent timeless concepts that are considered to be universally valid.

" Universal Truths " appears in:

Additional resources ( 1 ).

• AP English Language - Argument Essay: Evidence

Related terms

Ethics : Moral principles that govern behavior and decision-making based on what is considered right or wrong.

Cultural Relativism : The belief that cultural norms and values should be understood within their own context rather than judged against universal standards.

Human Rights : Basic rights inherent to all individuals regardless of their nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, etc., such as freedom of speech or equality before the law.

Stay Connected

© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.

AP® and SAT® are trademarks registered by the College Board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website.

• Basics of English
• Essential Grammar
• Learning Course
• Day To Day English
• Miscellaneous
• Test Knowledge
• Audible Conversation

Direct-Indirect Speech - Simple Sentences

• ABBREVIATIONS
• BIOGRAPHIES
• CALCULATORS
• CONVERSIONS
• DEFINITIONS

    Collection    

Castle, Season 4

Alexis: (While giving her graduation speech.)There's a universal truth we all have to face whether we want to or not. Everything eventually ends. As much as I've looked forward to this day, I've always disliked endings. The last day of summer. The final chapter of a great book. Parting ways with a close friend. But endings are inevitable. Leaves fall. You close the book. You say good-bye. Today is one of those days for us. Today we say good-bye to everything that was familiar, everything that was comfortable. We're moving on. But just because we're leaving, and that hurts... There are some people who are so much a part of us they'll be with us no matter what. They are our solid ground, Our North Star, and the small clear voices in our hearts that will be with us... always.

Share your thoughts on Castle, Season 4's quote with the community:

Report Comment

We're doing our best to make sure our content is useful, accurate and safe. If by any chance you spot an inappropriate comment while navigating through our website please use this form to let us know, and we'll take care of it shortly.

You need to be logged in to favorite .

Create a new account.

Your name: * Required

Your email address: * Required

Pick a user name: * Required

Username: * Required

Password: * Required

Forgot your password?    Retrieve it

Use the citation below to add this movie quote to your bibliography:

Style: MLA Chicago APA

"Castle, Season 4 Quotes." Quotes.net. STANDS4 LLC, 2024. Web. 20 Jun 2024. < https://www.quotes.net/show-quote/13665 >.

Know another quote from Castle, Season 4?

Don't let people miss on a great quote from the "castle, season 4" movie - add it here, the web's largest resource for, famous quotes & sayings, a member of the stands4 network, browse quotes.net, are you a quotes master, who said : "children are completely egoistic; they feel their needs intensely and strive ruthlessly to satisfy them.".

Give some examples of universal truth.

Answer: universal truth implies widely accepted facts which does not change over period, circumstance, location, and so on. these are the reality that are accepted with no doubt. examples.

The following are examples of universal truths

• In the East, the sun rises and falls in the West.
• The earth is revolving around the sun.
• Humans are mortals.
• Changing is nature’s law.
• Water is tasteless, colourless and odourless.
• Sun gives us light.

Give some examples of matter

give some examples of plasma

Give some examples of autotrophic animals.