I have tried to reformulate my question hoping information technology is more understandable now.

the parcel was non delivered therefore information technology remains the seller's property.

. I think this is an idiomatic sentence: it was not delivered (no hope for a alter so now the event belongs to the by )

In reported speech am I obliged to backshift if both clauses are nevertheless true.

he said it was not delivered therefore information technology remains the seller'south belongings.

he said it had non delivered therefore it remained the seller's property.

asked February 13 at 15:48

half-dozen

  • I already answered this question. Can you tell us why y'all are request it over again? By the manner, "had not been delivered" in your second example. He said the parcel had non been delivered and therefore was the seller's property.

    Feb xiii at 15:57

  • Yeah but you did non tell me why are we obliged to backshift as both clauses are still true at the moment of writing.

    February 13 at 16:21

  • I really don't empathise why is it necessary to backshift as the state of affairs is nevertheless true at the fourth dimension of writing

    Feb 13 at 17:19

  • [why nosotros are obliged] If y'all desire to be articulate in a complaint, exit no room for incertitude. The human action of not delivering preceded the fact of it remaining the seller's property.

    Feb thirteen at 17:22

  • Yes but writing 'he said information technology was not delivered therefore it remains the seller'due south holding' indicates that first was the non delivering then the remaining

    Feb 13 at 17:28