If Darlington were here, he would stay and fight

[constantinusphilo]

If Darlington were here, he would stay and fight, make sure the Grays were contained and Reyes was kept safe.

Ninth House, Leigh Bardugo

Is it not more natural to use the present simple here instead of the past simple? Also, if she uses 'were' with the Grays, it would be more consistent to use 'were' with Reyes as well, as a past subjunctive.

 

[5jj]

If Darlington were here, he would stay and fight, make sure the Grays were contained and Reyes was kept safe.

The first 'were' is subjunctive. The second 'were' and the 'was' are, correctly, indicative.

 

[constantinusphilo]

But it does not make any sense.

 

[emsr2d2]

But it does not make any sense.

What doesn't make sense to you?

 

[constantinusphilo]

If the situation refers to the present time, as the verbs `would stay and fight, make sure' indicate (unreal condition referring to the present), then how can it be that the verb in the subordinate object clause refers to the past 'were, was' if we take it to be the past indicative? One can make sure that something/ someone is but not that something/someone was.

 

[5jj]

​

If Darlington were here, he would stay and fight, (and) make sure (that) the Grays were contained and
Reyes was kept safe.

The unfaded part is the conditional sentence.

he will ensure that the Grays are contained and Reyes is kept safe.
he would ensure that the Grays were contained and Reyes was kept safe.

The unfaded parts are the reported version of what he will ensure.

 

[constantinusphilo]

If I understand you correctly, a subordinate clause depending on a main clause in the present unreal condition must be put into a past tense.
In other words, there is a backshift, as in reported speech dependent upon a main clause in the past.