rozkrájel

11:02 Nov 13, 2011 

"Had cut" sounds to me a bit too strong in this context. Sequence of activities is clear. I mean that simple past could be sufficient in this case there is no real need to make further distinction.

I could remind recent interesting discussion about use of tenses.

09:58 Nov 13, 2011 

Yes that's fine - 'Jana told Vera that Jiri had cut the rolls' - but the whole sentence sounds a bit contrived to actually be used in an everyday situation, though ...

09:54 Nov 13, 2011 

I would say the logic of the situation is this:
Jana says: "Jiří has cut the rolls."
Jana said Jiří had cut the rolls.

I would say "had cut" is gramatically correct. I agree "cut" is OK too as it is obvious from the situation what happened first. Correct me if I am wrong.

09:47 Nov 13, 2011 

'cut' is correct, possibly 'has cut', but I wouldn't use 'had cut'. It all depends on the context, and what comes before and after. It would be 'had seen', though, i.e. '"Jiri cut the rolls" said Jana to Vera 5 minutes after she had seen the prepared snack/breakfast' - or for more emphasis - 'It was Jiri who cut the rolls ... '. This would be in response to 'Who cut the rolls?'. In a slightly different context, '"Jiri has cut the rolls" said Jana to Vera, 5 minutes after she had seen the prepared breakfast.' This would be to confirm that Jiri had indeed carried out the task, perhaps in relief that somebody had taken the time to do it. I can't think of a scenario in which I would use such a phrase anyway :)

08:22 Nov 13, 2011 

Pokud to chcete i ve správném čase, tak potom "had cut"

08:20 Nov 13, 2011 

nemělo by být has cut?