Hi,

Would you give me the reason that the underlined part is not "even if he had owned it to me personally"?

I'd point out that the long-distance call would cost more than the money she was owed, but she didn't seem to care, saying that it was the principle that bothered her. "Call them now before they have their tea."

I'd then pick up the phone and pretend to dial. There was no way I could get heavy-handed and demand that an English person send me money, even if he owed it to me personally.

Thank you,

M
It is a simple past statement of his ability: There was no way I could...even if he owed... Why do you think past perfect is needed? The sequence of events - (1) owe, (2) demand - is clear enough.
mitsuwao23even if he had owned it to me personally
owed. Emotion: smile

The reason is that the pretending to dial, the getting heavy-handed, the demanding, and the owing of money are all in the same time frame. In other words, they are all true of the same general situation, so there is no reason to select a tense which would take the reader backwards in time from the events being described.

CJ
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
I am so confused and don't have the ability to articulate in english what's confusing me.

If I may, I would like to invite this post:

http://www.EnglishForward.com/English/TenseWithIf/pmbxl/post.htm

(You really don't have to visit it since there's already two natives, but I bet you're on Avangi's side.)

Based on what I have got from the text book, past perfect is needed because the author is talking in the past tense, and he wasn't actually owned any money.

So to me, in the present tense, it becomes:

There is no way I could get heavy-handed and demand that an English person send me money, even if he owed it to me personally.

and so in the past tense, I believe it becomes:

There was no way I could get heavy-handed and demand that an English person send me money, even if he had owed it to me personally.
Sorry, I'd like to make my point clear.

If I understand my text book correctly, I think I could say:

"Look! she's talking as if she knew everything" (past tense is used because she doesn't know everything.)

So, I suppose that it becomes like this in the past tense:

"You know what, yesterday she was talking as if she had known everything"

Please correct me! there should be a critical mistake in my misunderstanding.
mitsuwao23and he wasn't actually owned any money.
Owed!

mitsuwao23So to me, in the present tense, it becomes:

There is no way I could get heavy-handed and demand that an English person send me money, even if he owed it to me personally.

and so in the past tense, I believe it becomes:

There was no way I could get heavy-handed and demand that an English person send me money, even if he had owed it to me personally.
I would have written

There was no way I could have got heavy-handed and demanded ....

Regarding the final clause, both versions (owed / had owed) seem fine to me, though I suppose your textbook recommends had owed because it's contrafactual - which wasn't clear to me when I read it above.

CJ
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
mitsuwao23"...she's talking as if she knew everything" ...
I suppose that it becomes like this in the past tense:
"... she was talking as if she had known everything"
This is the technically correct backshift, but it seems hypercorrect. I would say as if she knew in both cases.

Or possibly, as if she knows in the first, as if she knew in the second. The as if seems enough to indicate the idea of something contrafactual.

CJ
Yes, it's "owed." You knew the system sometimes would take minutes to update posts. It wasn't there when I posted the previous oneEmotion: mooning

Anyway, it seems that the rules in terms of tense are not as strict as I thought, and both seem fine.

Thank you very much for taking your time for my confusion.

MEmotion: tmi