In book Wren and Martin page number 230, look at examples of Direct and Indirect.

[B]Direct. The lecturer said, 'Akbar won the respect of all races and classes by his justice."

Indirect. The lecturer said that Akbar won the respect of all races and classes by his justice.
[/B]
here past indefinite is not changed into past perfect if it is being changed, it doesn't matter.

Conform it, was there mistake of HAD?

[QUOTE=Alyosha;398082]"the prince said , ' how can i turn away the mother , who born me and nourished me ?"

the sentence itself has a grammatical mistake. one can not say "born me". A person is born. a mother gives birth. a mother does not born someone. I believe the word you're looking for is [B]borne[/B] that is the past participle of bear.

@nice051
"prince told (me) that he could not turn away the mother who had born him and nourished him."
by adding [U]not[/U] you're changing a positive sentence into a negative one.

The correct answer is [B]The prince asked how could[/B] ([I]simple present into simple past[/I]) [B]he turn[/B] ([I]no change in past perfect[/I]) [B]away the mother who HAD borne and nourished him.[/B] ([I]borne and nourished are both simple past tense and simple past changes to past perfect[/I])
[url=http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/reportedspeech.htm]English Grammar - direct speech - quoted speech and indirect speech - reported speech - Learn English[/url][/QUOTE]

reason of adding NOT in the sentence is that actually the prince does not want to turn away or in simple word throw away his mother . ( HOW CAN in the above sentence is used in the sense of ( k asa kesay ho sakta ha \ so while reporting his intention in indirect speech i used the word NOT.

[QUOTE=zuhaib ahmed;398133]In book Wren and Martin page number 230, look at examples of Direct and Indirect.

[B]Direct. The lecturer said, 'Akbar won the respect of all races and classes by his justice."

Indirect. The lecturer said that Akbar won the respect of all races and classes by his justice.
[/B]
here past indefinite is not changed into past perfect if it is being changed, it doesn't matter.

Conform it, was there mistake of HAD?[/QUOTE]

if we go by rules then HAD must be used.

[QUOTE=nice051;398139]if we go by rules then HAD must be used.[/QUOTE]

Yes, why [B]Akbar won[/B] is not changed into [B]Akbar Had won?[/B].

[QUOTE=zuhaib ahmed;398141]Yes, why [B]Akbar won[/B] is not changed into [B]Akbar Had won?[/B].[/QUOTE]

What I think is that the writer is taking it as a "universal truth" and in such a case the tense doesn't change. Otherwise there could be no explanation(i guess) because the rules say to use 'had'. What do you say?

[QUOTE=Amigo;398213]What I think is that the writer is taking it as a "universal truth" and in such a case the tense doesn't change. Otherwise there could be no explanation(i guess) because the rules say to use 'had'. What do you say?[/QUOTE]

I second AMIGO

It isn't a universal fact.

[QUOTE=zuhaib ahmed;398276]It isn't a universal fact.[/QUOTE]

I know it isn't a universal truth balke bohat se laug to shaaid es ko simply truth bhi na maantey hon :haha What I wanted to say was ke writer has dealt with it as an "established fact".

e.g. He said, "I was born on 1st January, 1990."
He said that he was born on 1st January, 1990.
OR
He said that he had been born on 1st January, 1990.

What do you say? Rules say option 2 is right but I think 1st one is more commendable as there must be some exceptions to this rule as well.

[QUOTE=Amigo;398279]I know it isn't a universal truth balke bohat se laug to shaaid es ko simply truth bhi na maantey hon :haha What I wanted to say was ke writer has dealt with it as an "established fact".

e.g. He said, "I was born on 1st January, 1990."
He said that he was born on 1st January, 1990.
OR
He said that he had been born on 1st January, 1990.

What do you say? Rules say option 2 is right but I think 1st one is more commendable as there must be some exceptions to this rule as well.[/QUOTE]

Yes, same; i have been asking. What is wrong if i had not add HAD? :thinking

[QUOTE=zuhaib ahmed;398282]Yes, same; i have been asking. What is wrong if i had not add HAD? :thinking[/QUOTE]

Well jiada to main nahin janta but I think it is always safe to go by the rules. So you should use 'had'. Because 'had' laga denay se shaaid hi koi jumla galat ho jaye magar 'had' na lagaaney se I believe boohat saarey jumlay galat ho sakty hain. I hope you get what I am trying to convey here. :vic

Aur han sach, yes there was a mistake of HAD in your first sentence(wo mother born waley mein).

[QUOTE=Amigo;398283]Well jiada to main nahin janta but I think it is always safe to go by the rules. So you should use 'had'. Because 'had' laga denay se shaaid hi koi jumla galat ho jaye magar 'had' na lagaaney se I believe boohat saarey jumlay galat ho sakty hain. I hope you get what I am trying to convey here. :vic

Aur han sach, yes there was a mistake of HAD in your first sentence(wo mother born waley mein).[/QUOTE]

Oh! Ok.
I had read example of Akbar in wren and martin so i thought, It would not make a problem of [B]HAD[/B]. Now, it's in my mind.