Percy - thanks for your post. It's an interesting point about there being only one heaven and hell and thus the need for lower case. On the other hand there's only one 'Earth'.

The word 'city' is not capitalized but the British refer to the old part of London (now the financial quarter) as 'the City'. That's because a particular place is being referred to. Titles are the same. One says 'sergeant' but 'Sergeant Jones' - a particular person.

" If I was the prime minister" suggests that he can't remember if he held that office. And I thought I had a short attention span.

You're right, Will. Many authorities acknowledge backshifting, as I noted.
It's just that it seems to defy logic. Perhaps it was an idiomatic use that has gained acceptance.

You don't need to backshift with universal truths, e.g. "Copernicus said that the earth revolves around the sun."
The phrase 'sequence of tenses' is the standard term. Fowler described the use of the past in such cases as, "She said we didn't have power," as 'normal' and the use of the present in, "She said we don't have power" as 'vivid'.

It's not relevant that the situation still exists. Her statement was in the past and that's where it has to stay - all of it.

Hey Will, it's time we agreed on something.

Caché? Did someone write that?

This question has been around for a long time. Let me quote from 'The Complete Plain Words' by Sir Ernest Gowers:
'Have got', for 'possess' or 'have', says Fowler, is good colloquial but not good literary English. Others have been more lenient. Dr. Johnson said:
'He has good a good estate' does not always mean that he has acquired, but barely that he possesses it. So we say that ' the lady has got black eyes', merely meaning that she has them.
When such high authorities differ, (Gowers continues) what is a plain man to think? If it is true that superfluous words are an evil, we ought to condemn ' the lady has got black eyes' but not 'the lady has got a black eye'. Still, writing for those whose prose inclines more to primness than to colloquialisms, and who are not likely to overdo the use of 'got', we advise them not to be afraid of it.

As an Englishman, I've heard 'ant' and 'ahnt'. There is certainly a class component in the UK. (It's hard to get away from it.) 'Ahnt' is middle and upper class.'Ant' is working class. That's not a judgement - just a sociological observation.
I've never heard awnt, ont or aint but I celebrate the diversity of pronunciation.
The 'au' in 'launch', for example, is pronounced differently here than in the U.S., which may be complicating matters on this thread. We pronounce 'launch', 'haunt' etc. as 'lawnch' and 'hawnt'. Americans, at least to my ear, seem to be saying 'lahnch' and ''hahnt'. But I don't say 'aunt' like any of the above. It seems to be one of a kind.

By the way, I'd like to hear more from Tyrone and his crack ho aunts.

Will
Thanks for your response.
I agree that differences between AmerE and BritE have something to do with it. I also agree with your comments on Ella, who can do no wrong.
I am starting to repeat myself so, before I shut up on this subject, let me just say that my (old) copy of the Shorter Oxford defines medication as the action of treating medically, documentation as the furnishing of documents and transportation as the provision of transport.
More modern dictionaries recognize them as synonyms.
My point is that a useful distinction is being lost.
My lips are now sealed.