Both terms describe a way of recounting something that may have been said – but there is a subtle difference between them.
Direct speech describes when something is being repeated exactly as it was – usually in between a pair of inverted commas. For example:
She told me, “I’ll come home by 10pm.”
Indirect speech will still share the same information – but instead of expressing someone’s comments or speech by directly repeating them, it involves reporting or describing what was said. An obvious difference is that with indirect speech, you won’t use inverted commas. For example:
She said to me that she would come home by 10pm.
Direct speech can be used in virtually every tense in English.
Indirect speech is used to report what someone may have said, and so it is always used in the past tense. Instead of using inverted commas, we can show that someone’s speech is being described by using the word “that” to introduce the statement first.
Answer:
ni om lle si le en pk . n on . v eu potes et partager Il faut u'un petit nt t'm ki ion ai ni
A strong requirement is that a testable hypothesis must meet before it can really be considered scientific
This depends on your age and what language you are trying to learn really. Think about it this way, when you were born, how long did it take you to learn English (or your native tongue)? About five years right? This also depends on a bunch of other different factors like how much you practice, your determination, and the fluency of the language your speaking. So really there is no real definite answer because all people are different, but if I were to say, I'd say about five years...
The majority of languages use fragments of Latin, and there are expressions with fragments of Latin. So it's true that Latin is the basis of all languages.
