I'd like to know the difference in these two sentences:
- He said the cause is not known, but evidence at the scene suggested foul play.
- He said the cause is not known, but evidence at the scene suggests foul play.
Is there any difference in nuance and meaning?
Not really sure what the issue is and the need for the edit. I completely understand the difference in past and present tense. The issue arises from how it is used and if there is a difference in meaning. The answer I marked correct answered this for me clearly.
Best Answer
[I've added that's to avoid the ambiguity.]
This is fine; the incident is recent (at the time it is here being reported), and the cause remains unknown and the suggestion of foul play has not been disproved.
..........
This is somewhat problematic. The cause remains unknown at the time the speaker (not 'he') makes the statement, fine ... but the switch here to 'suggested' can reasonably be taken to mean that the 'evidence of foul play' has now been reinterpreted (if this is not the case, inconsistency of tenses is used). And one would expect a clearer explanation were this to be the case.
One could well hear this in real life though; it can be claimed that it's justified where the cause remains unknown while the evidence has since been washed away by a heavy storm, say.