# It was important that he went / that he go [AE vs BE + subjunctive]



## queen12

Hi everyone!

What is the difference in meaning between:

It was important that he went to Madrid

It was important that he go to Madrid


Thanks a lot


----------



## entangledbank

The first is ambiguous between two meanings. It can mean exactly the same as the second one, that is "he should go to Madrid (in the future): that is important". The first is used mainly in BrE. It can also be a statement of fact: "he went to Madrid (in the past): and that is important". For example, Sherlock Holmes might say that it was an important clue. He went to Madrid, so we know he wasn't in London. In my opinion, this other meaning is unlikely.


----------



## Kirill V.

The second, as written, is a subjunctive. (right?) Is a subjunctive currently used after "it is important that"? In other words, could one put it this way: _It was important that he would go to Madrid?_


----------



## Barque

I believe the first sentence could also mean that the reason that he went to Madrid was an important one (as distinct from the fact of going to Madrid being important).

The second sentence sounds to me like a justification for having made the decision to go (or send someone) to Madrid. Sounds similar, but there is a slight difference.


----------



## Kirill V.

Just found on one of the web-sites that subjunctive is indeed used after_ it is important that
_But somehow doubts remain...
For example, does this sound right to a native speaker: _It is important that he take his documents with him_
?


----------



## queen12

He got married two years ago

Now, you find out about it.

You say:

It was great he got married

It was great he get married

Only the first one,  isn't it?


----------



## Kirill V.

queen12 said:


> He got married two years ago
> 
> Now, you find out about it.
> 
> You say:
> 
> It was great he got married
> 
> It was great he get married
> 
> Only the first one,  isn't it?



Right. But here it's not the subjunctive mood.
If he was going to marry, though, then I think the right way to say it would be:
_(We thought) it was great he would marry 
_


----------



## boozer

Yes, the subjunctive can be used after certain words like _important/advisable/necessary/obligatory, etc. that. _This is not a rule, though - we can also use the indicative or some modal verb - should, may, etc. But I do not think _great _can support the subjunctive, no.

My understanding of the two examples is this:

1. It was important that he went to Madrid - as ETB says, it could mean (a) go to Madrid he did, and that was indeed important or (b) we do not know if he went to Madrid, but it was important that he should
2. It was important that he go to Madrid - only meaning (b) above


----------



## Kirill V.

Thank you! But some ends still don't meet here in my view...

_It was important that he went to Madrid
_Meaning (a) suggests that it's indicative mood
Meaning (b) suggests that it's subjunctive mood.

Then sentence #2 _It was important that he go to Madrid _doesn't work for me. Because if it is a subjunctive it should be past subjunctive, i.e. sentence #1. If it is not a subjunctive, than it should be _It was important that he would go to Madrid 

_So I don't see how present subjunctive can intervene here...


----------



## boozer

kayve said:


> _It was important that he went to Madrid
> _Meaning (a) suggests that it's indicative mood
> Meaning (b) suggests that it's subjunctive mood.


That is exactly right. As ETB said, the sentence is ambiguous in that respect and I agree with him, surely.



kayve said:


> Because if it is a subjunctive it should be past subjunctive.


No. 
_It is important that he go to Madrid_ - now
_It was important that he go to Madrid_ - he still has not gone, probably, but it is no longer important anyway. 


kayve said:


> If it is not a subjunctive, than it should be _It was important that he would go to Madrid _


 I cannot think of a context where I might drop that sentence. 
Present tense - It is important that he will go to Madrid - the fact that he has the intention to go to Madrid is important 
Past tense - It was important that he would go to Madrid - the fact that he had the intention to go to Madrid was important 
No, this sentence offers little application opportunities, mostly in the realm of grammar exercise.  (I expect someone will now pop in to say they feel they have wasted their day if they have not used it at least 3 times )


----------



## queen12

Thanks a lot!

Only one doubt:

In the sentence: It was important he go to Madrid

Go refers to what tense, future or past? I mean, after we say the sentence.

I think it refers to both, right?


----------



## natkretep

'Go' is the subjunctive - neither present or past.

This construction is unusual in BrE, and I would say 'should go'.


----------



## Loob

kayve said:


> ... Then sentence #2 _It was important that he go to Madrid _doesn't  work for me. Because if it is a subjunctive it should be past  subjunctive, i.e. sentence #1. If it is not a subjunctive, than it  should be _It was important that he would go to Madrid
> 
> _So I don't see how present subjunctive can intervene  here...


Yes, logically you're right that it should be a past subjunctive.  But the fact remains that  those who use the subjunctive in this construction use the *present* subjunctive: that's just the way it is.


queen12 said:


> ...
> In the sentence: It was important he go to Madrid
> 
> Go refers to what tense, future or past? I mean, after we say the sentence.
> 
> I think it refers to both, right?


I'm not sure I've understood; but perhaps it will help if I say that the _act_ of going happens after the _statement_ about the importance of going.
.....

*Added*: Nat's answer is better than mine!


----------



## queen12

Yes, i know it is the subjuntive.

What I wanted to say is: When should he have gone to Madrid? After o before we say the sentence. 

Example:

You said on 9 February:

It was important he go to the meeting.

Today is 17 February.

The meeting is 18 February.

The meeting was 14 February.

can the sentence above refer to both dates?


----------



## Kirill V.

queen12 said:


> Yes, i know it is the subjuntive.
> It was important that he go to the meeting.
> 
> Today is 17 February.
> 
> The meeting is 18 February.
> 
> The meeting was 14 February.
> 
> can the sentence above refer to both dates?



I think I got it, more or less. 
_It was important that he go to the meeting. = _It was important (for him, if not otherwise) to go to the meeting. So it says nothing as to when the meeting was scheduled to take place. It may have been scheduled for any of the dates you indicate.

As a side issue, I can imagine a context in which _It was important that he would go_ would make sense, I think, e.g.:
_X did attend the meeting yesterday. It's good, I think it was really important that he would go.
_


----------



## wandle

kayve said:


> _X did attend the meeting yesterday. It's good, I think it was really important that he would go.
> _


This still has the problem indicated earlier: 'would' expresses his intention and it is odd to say that his intention was important.
Since he did in fact go, we know that his intention did succeed in motivating him to go. 
We do not need to be told that his intention played an important part in motivating him to go.


----------



## wandle

queen12 said:


> It was important that he went to Madrid
> 
> It was important that he go to Madrid


I would avoid both of those formulas. 

Evaluating the result with hindsight, I would say _'The fact that he went to Madrid was important'._

Evaluating the significance as judged beforehand, I would say _'It was important that he should go to Madrid'_ or _'It was important for him to go to Madrid'_.


----------



## Kirill V.

wandle said:


> This still has the problem indicated earlier: 'would' expresses his intention and it is odd to say that his intention was important.
> Since he did in fact go, we know that his intention did succeed in motivating him to go.
> We do not need to be told that his intention played an important part in motivating him to go.


Yes, I am sorry, let me expand it to illustrate the kind of situation that I had in mind:

_X did attend the meeting yesterday. It's good, we discussed it with him before and he promised to go. I thought it was really important that he would go._


----------



## wandle

wandle said:


> Evaluating the significance as judged beforehand, I would say _'It was important that he should go to Madrid'_ or _'It was important for him to go to Madrid'_.


I would still not say 'would', unless you mean 'It was important that he was willing to go'.

In the examples I have given, 'important' means 'significant'.

 However, if you want to express necessity or obligation, you need different words, for example: 'It was essential [i.e. 'most necessary'] that he should go' or 'He was obliged to go'.


----------



## natkretep

wandle said:


> I would still not say 'would', unless you mean 'It was important that he was willing to go'.


I agree that 'would' suggests volition. One way of avoiding it is to say, 'It was important that he would be going.'


----------



## Mahantongo

I am coming into this a little late, but here is my understanding of these:

_It was important that he went to Madrid_: He actually went to Madrid at some point in the past, and what is important is that he as actually performed the action.  I like the example above of the Sherlock Holmes clue -- In that case, it does not really matter whether he went to Madrid, or Rome, or Paris; what matters is the fact that he was not in London (which absence was the result of his being in Madrid.)  In another and opposite example, the suspicious wife believes that her husband is having an affair with Queen Letizia of Spain.  She notices that on his last business trip, he went to Madrid.  She believes this proves his guilt, and says to her divorce lawyer "_it was important that he went to Madrid -- and not any other city in Spain, because that is where the Queen lives_!"

_It was important that he go to Madrid:_ To me, this means that he had an obligation to go to Madrid, and it was important that he fulfill this obligation.  However, whether or not he actually did go to Madrid is not indicated: _We had a rupture in the supply tube of our widget machine in our Madrid factory.  The only person who can repair these things is Bob Smith, and so we told him to leave at once.  *It was important that he go to Madrid *-- but instead, he ignored our directive, and he went on vacation to Aruba!_


----------



## Silent Brown

To Mahantongo,
Your connotation is tense in the sentence, right? 
But with the present tense, so?
Is it important that everyone ___ his bit for the team?
A do 
B does
The key is B but I can't undertand it. Please help me out.


----------



## Mahantongo

Silent Brown said:


> To Mahantongo,
> Your connotation is tense in the sentence, right?


I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean.  I was responding to the initial post by queen12.



> But with the present tense, so?
> Is it important that everyone ___ his bit for the team?
> A do
> B does
> The key is B but I can't undertand it. Please help me out.


"Does" is indicative, and "do" is subjunctive.  I would prefer the subjunctive, but the indicative is also acceptable here.  It would not be accurate to say that "A" is an incorrect answer.  It is the same structure as the following:
_It is necessary that John* talk *to his client before tomorrow
It is necessary that John* talks *to his client before tomorrow.
_


----------



## Forero

queen12 said:


> Hi everyone!
> 
> What is the difference in meaning between:
> 
> It was important that he went to Madrid
> 
> It was important that he go to Madrid
> 
> Thanks a lot


Where I live, the first says that the fact that he went was important (and it cannot have the other meaning ETB talks about for BrE), and the second means that he had an important obligation to go to Madrid.

When subjunctive is used for an obligation, the form is invariably the same as for a bare infinitive. It does not change from "go" to "went" or from "be" to "were".





Silent Brown said:


> To Mahantongo,
> Your connotation is tense in the sentence, right?
> But with the present tense, so?
> Is it important that everyone ___ his bit for the team?
> A do
> B does
> The key is B but I can't undertand it. Please help me out.


"His bit" sounds British to me, so this is probably a question about British English.

But in American English, "that everyone does his part" is an idea that is either true or false. It is not about obligation. In contrast, "that everyone do his part" is subjunctive, meaning "for him to do his part", when the latter is taken as a noun phrase.


----------



## Kirill V.

Thank you very much, Mahantongo, for very eloquent examples.
Just to make sure that I understand the grammar of it:



Mahantongo said:


> I am coming into this a little late, but here is my understanding of these:
> 
> _It was important that he went to Madrid_: He actually went to Madrid at some point in the past, and what is important is that he as actually performed the action.  I like the example above of the Sherlock Holmes clue -- In that case, it does not really matter whether he went to Madrid, or Rome, or Paris; what matters is the fact that he was not in London (which absence was the result of his being in Madrid.)



Here it's indicative mood, right?



Mahantongo said:


> I am coming into this a little late, but here is my understanding of these:
> 
> _It was important that he went to Madrid_: ...In another and opposite example, the suspicious wife believes that her husband is having an affair with Queen Letizia of Spain.  She notices that on his last business trip, he went to Madrid.  She believes this proves his guilt, and says to her divorce lawyer "_it was important that he went to Madrid -- and not any other city in Spain, because that is where the Queen lives_!"


This is an example with the past subjunctive, right?



Mahantongo said:


> _It was important that he go to Madrid:_ To me, this means that he had an obligation to go to Madrid, and it was important that he fulfill this obligation.  However, whether or not he actually did go to Madrid is not indicated: _We had a rupture in the supply tube of our widget machine in our Madrid factory.  The only person who can repair these things is Bob Smith, and so we told him to leave at once.  *It was important that he go to Madrid *-- but instead, he ignored our directive, and he went on vacation to Aruba!_


This is present subjunctive, right?


----------



## Loob

Kayve, even when _It was important that he went to Madrid _means_ It was important for him to go to Madrid _- a meaning which is possible in BrE, but not in AmE _- _I think we're using the past indicative, not the past subjunctive. 

My reason for saying this is that if I changed the verb from "go" to "be", then the sentence would become _It was important that he was in Madrid _not_ It was important that he were in Madrid.

_There's a subjunctive "flavour" to the blue "went"; but I don't see it as actually subjunctive mood.  Others may disagree.


----------



## Kirill V.

Okay, thanks a lot. I think I have asked too many questions already, so I better leave it there.
It was important that I understand how it works; and now I think I do 
Many thanks to everybody


----------



## Forero

kayve said:


> Thank you very much, Mahantongo, for very eloquent examples.
> Just to make sure that I understand the grammar of it:
> 
> 
> Mahantongo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am coming into this a little late, but here is my understanding of these:
> 
> _It was important that he went to Madrid_: He actually went to Madrid at some point in the past, and what is important is that he *h*as actually performed the action.  I like the example above of the Sherlock Holmes clue -- In that case, it does not really matter whether he went to Madrid, or Rome, or Paris; what matters is the fact that he was not in London (which absence was the result of his being in Madrid.)
> 
> 
> 
> Here it's indicative mood, right?
Click to expand...

I am not Mahantongo, but I speak AmE too.

Yes, this is past indicative, not subjunctive. The speaker attaches importance to "his" having been in Madrid because it can be used as evidence.





> Mahantongo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am coming into this a little late, but here is my understanding of these:
> 
> _It was important that he went to Madrid_: ...In another and opposite example, the suspicious wife believes that her husband is having an affair with Queen Letizia of Spain.  She notices that on his last business trip, he went to Madrid.  She believes this proves his guilt, and says to her divorce lawyer "_it was important that he went to Madrid -- and not any other city in Spain, because that is where the Queen lives_!"
> 
> 
> 
> This is an example with the past subjunctive, right?
Click to expand...

No, still past indicative. After "It was important", "went" cannot be subjunctive (in AmE). Just as in the "opposite" example, the speaker attaches importance to "his" having been in Madrid because it can be used as evidence.





> Mahantongo said:
> 
> 
> 
> _It was important that he go to Madrid:_ To me, this means that he had an obligation to go to Madrid, and it was important that he fulfill this obligation.  However, whether or not he actually did go to Madrid is not indicated: _We had a rupture in the supply tube of our widget machine in our Madrid factory.  The only person who can repair these things is Bob Smith, and so we told him to leave at once.  *It was important that he go to Madrid *-- but instead, he ignored our directive, and he went on vacation to Aruba!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is present subjunctive, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, this is subjunctive to express propriety or obligation. When subjunctive has this purpose in current AmE, it is always the simple form of the verb (e.g. "be").

Past subjunctive is used for things such as a hypothesis contrary to fact (e.g. "If I were you"), or an "unthinkable" eventuality (e.g. "If I were to die before tomorrow").

There are some purposes for which past subjunctive expresses for past time the same thing that present subjunctive does for present time, but they do not apply in the case of "important that ...". For example, past tense "Whether it were you or me, someone had to be there" corresponds to present tense "Whether it be you or me, someone has to be there", in which the subjunctive indicates alternatives that do not really make any difference. And something like "If he be found" might be used to indicate futurity, especially for a doubtful future, and in past tense this might become "If he were found".

There is no "whether" or "if" implied with "It was important that ....".


----------



## Kirill V.

Thanks a lot, Forero, for the detailed explanation. I think I have understood more or less the issue. What's especially new to me is the use of past subjunctive. Certainly will have to keep thinking about this!


----------



## queen12

First of all, thanks a lot!

The difference is:

Past simple: In british it can work as a subjuntive mood.

Past simple: It never works as subjuntive mood, instead americans use the infinitive without to.

Right?


----------



## Forero

queen12 said:


> First of all, thanks a lot!
> 
> The difference is:
> 
> Past simple: In *B*ritish it can work as a subjuntive mood.
> 
> Past simple: It never works as subjuntive mood, instead *A*mericans use the infinitive without to.
> 
> Right?


Not quite.

For purposes of this discussion, let us ignore archaic forms such as "wast", "wert", "beest", "wende", etc., and consider only current everyday verb forms and their usage.

A present subjunctive verb form is identical to a bare infinitive verb form. For example, the present subjunctive of "to be" is _be_ for all persons and numbers, and the present subjunctive of "to go" is _go_ for all persons and numbers.

A past subjunctive verb form is identical to a past indicative verb form except that the past subjunctive of "to be" is _were_ for all persons and numbers. The past subjunctive of "to go" is _went_, just like the past indicative.

In everyday English, no one says "It was important that he were found", using past subjunctive after "important", so "It was important that he went to Madrid" has to be past indicative, not subjunctive.

In AmE, we distinguish "It was important that he go to Madrid", with subjunctive, from "It was important that he went to Madrid", with past indicative. The subjunctive expresses something like the idea that we wanted him to go to Madrid, and the past indicative expresses something like the fact that he actually went to Madrid.

British English avoids the subjunctive and uses "It was important that he was found" with the meaning "It was important that he be found" and "It was important that he went to Madrid" with the meaning "It was important that he go to Madrid."

I have read in these forums that British English allows "It was imperative that he was found", which to an AmE speaker sounds positively bizarre, and that BrE speakers easily confuse us AmE speakers by using "I insisted that he was found" and "I suggested that he was found" as if they meant "I insisted that he be found" and "I suggested that he be found", respectively.

In AmE, "I suggested that he was found" never suggests that I wanted him to be found, only that I brought up his being found in some sense. I might have suggested that his being found was fact or that it was worth considering as a possible fact.


----------



## Loob

(Excellent analysis, Forero!)


----------



## AmaryllisBunny

Loob said:


> Kayve, even when It was important that he went to Madrid means It was important for him to go to Madrid - a meaning which is possible in BrE, but not in AmE - I think we're using the past indicative, not the past subjunctive.



"It was important for him to go to Madrid" is not uncommon in AmE.

In regards to being subjunctive or not depends on the actual meaning you wish to convey; Both the indicative preterit and subjunctive preterit apply in these situations.

Breakdown:

It is important that he go to Madrid. — 3rd-person advice (subjunctive)
E.g.: It is important for him to go (but whether he does...)  -

It is important that he went to Madrid. — Indicative ( his "having gone to Madrid" is important)
E.g.: He went to Madrid and that was important.

It was important that he go to Madrid. — 3rd-person advice in the past (subjunctive)
E.g.: It was important for him to go (but whether he did...)

It was important that he went to Madrid. — Indicative (incorrect, requires pluperfect.)
E.g. It was important that he had gone to Madrid.

It was important that he went to Madrid. — 3rd-person advice in the past (past subjunctive)
E.g. It was important for him to have [already] gone to Madrid.

*Note that advice in the third person is very distant (and in the olden days was used as a mark of respect).

It is worth noting that the subjunctive in English has become nearly obsolete with "that constructions." In order to sound more natural, the alternative constructions given provide better "sounding" sentences. This is because grammar alone is not definitive of good speaking/writing.

Other Cringe-worthy examples:
I wish that he be nicer.
I wish that he were nicer.
I wish he was nicer.

I am smarter than him. - globally accepted by proper usage books.
I am smarter than he [is]. - accepted by traditional grammarians.


----------



## queen12

Thanks!!# you all are amazing!! 


By the way, can anyone tell me when I can use "for" in those structures?

In my textbook there is something about that nut not much.

I think it is after adjetives or something like:

It is necessary for him to do that.
It is strange for him to eat it.
It is vital for her to study harder.

And so on...

I don't know. For only works in some adjetives? What is the way to follow?

Any help?


----------



## Forero

queen12 said:


> Thanks!!# you all are amazing!!
> 
> 
> By the way, can anyone tell me when I can use "for" in those structures?
> 
> In my textbook there is something about that nut not much.
> 
> I think it is after adjetives or something like:
> 
> It is necessary for him to do that.
> It is strange for him to eat it.
> It is vital for her to study harder.
> 
> And so on...
> 
> I don't know. For only works in some adjetives? What is the way to follow?
> 
> Any help?


It "works" in all these cases. I find the subjunctive structure less ambiguous because, for example, "important for him" and "vital for her" might be taken as complete phrases, with the prepositional phrase in each case modifying the adjective, but "that he" and "that she" are obviously incomplete (because of the subject pronouns) without the following "go to Madrid", "study harder", etc.


----------



## Loob

Just out of interest, does anyone know how it came about that the present subjunctive is used (especially in AmE) after "it was important", rather than the past subjunctive?  Why is it "it was important that he be there" rather than "it was important that he were there"?


----------



## Kirill V.

Loob said:


> Just out of interest, does anyone know how it came about that the present subjunctive is used (especially in AmE) after "it was important", rather than the past subjunctive?  Why is it "it was important that he be there" rather than "it was important that he were there"?



From the discussion in this thread I understood that even in BrE past subjunctive has been replaced with past indicative. Of course the difference is only with the verb_ to be_, but still... _to be _is an important verb, it does come up often...

_We had to rush for another meeting, so it was important that the speaker wind up within ten minutes _- AE, BE, present subjunctive

_We had to rush for another meeting, so it was important that the speaker wound up within ten minutes. - _BE, past indicative, based on what's been said here


----------



## Ivan_I

AmaryllisBunny said:


> It was important that he went to Madrid. — Indicative (incorrect, requires pluperfect.)
> E.g. It was important that he had gone to Madrid.
> 
> It was important that he went to Madrid. — 3rd-person advice in the past (past subjunctive)
> E.g. It was important for him to have [already] gone to Madrid.



Am I correct in thinking that the above is in line with the American view of the issue? If yes, I have some questions.

1 Do the others agree that this is correct:

*It was important that he went to Madrid. — Indicative (incorrect, requires pluperfect.)*
*E.g. It was important that he had gone to Madrid.*

I also think that the past perfect is better, but no one except *AmaryllisBunny *has pointed that out. Why? Is it correct for the others to say "*It was important that he went to Madrid."?*

2 I am hiving difficulty understanding this:
*It was important that he went to Madrid. — 3rd-person advice in the past (past subjunctive)
E.g. It was important for him to have [already] gone to Madrid.*

I thought it should be understood like this: *It was important that he (should) go to Madrid. *
Hence, *going *after *being important.*

I don't see how "to have [already] gone to Madrid" creeps in here?


----------



## Forero

_It was important that he went to Madrid.
It was important that he had gone to Madrid._

Which is appropriate depends on context, including what, exactly, you want to communicate.





Ivan_I said:


> 2 I am h*a*ving difficulty understanding this:
> *It was important that he went to Madrid. — 3rd-person advice in the past (past subjunctive)
> E.g. It was important for him to have [already] gone to Madrid.*
> 
> I thought it should be understood like this: *It was important that he (should) go to Madrid. *
> Hence, *going *after *being important.*
> 
> I don't see how "to have [already] gone to Madrid" creeps in here?


Suppose we have the following situation:

_He_ [_already_]_ went to Madrid.
This is important.
In other words, it is important that he_ [_already_]_ went to Madrid.
_
Suppose the above situation was the case yesterday. Then we say:

[_Yesterday_] _he had_ [_already_]_ gone to Madrid.
This was important.
In other words, it was important _[_yesterday_] _that he had_ [_already_]_ gone to Madrid._

That makes sense, but it does not make "It was important that he went to Madrid" wrong.

And in AmE "It was important that he should go to Madrid" does not mean the same as "It was important that he go to Madrid."


----------



## Ivan_I

Forero said:


> _In other words, it was important _[_yesterday_] _that he had_ [_already_]_ gone to Madrid._
> That makes sense, but it does not make "It was important that he went to Madrid" wrong.


To me, as a grammar pedant, the sentence is clumsy because I can easily see it interpreted as:
The past version of: *It's important that he goes to Madrid. (It's important that he went to Madrid habitually)*

But I take it as you find:
*It's important that he went to Madrid *to equal *It's important that he he had gone to Madrid. *(Which I find to be a deviation)



Forero said:


> And in AmE "It was important that he should go to Madrid" does not mean the same as "It was important that he go to Madrid."


I suppose: It was important that he should go to Madrid. is supposed to mean "It's important that he had to go to Madrid".


----------



## Forero

Ivan_I said:


> To me, as a grammar pedant, the sentence is clumsy because I can easily see it interpreted as:
> The past version of: *It's important that he goes to Madrid. (It's important that he went to Madrid habitually)*
> 
> But I take it as you find:
> *It's important that he went to Madrid *to equal *It's important that he he had gone to Madrid. *(Which I find to be a deviation)


Sometimes past tense is just past tense.

Present: "It is important that he goes to Madrid."
Past: "It was important that he went to Madrid."

Present: "It is important that he has gone to Madrid."
Past: "It was important that he had gone to Madrid."

Present: "It is important that he went to Madrid."
Past: "It was important that he went to Madrid." / "It was important that he had gone to Madrid." (depending on context, including speaker's intent)

If it was important that he went but unimportant when he went, "went" is a better choice than "had gone".





> I suppose: It was important that he should go to Madrid. is supposed to mean "It's important that he had to go to Madrid".


"Had to" is stronger and more definitely in the past than "should".

"It is important that he should go to Madrid." = "It is important that he ought to go to Madrid." (multiple meanings possible for both)

Also possible:

Present: "It is important that he shall go to Madrid."
Past: "It was important that he should go to Madrid."


----------



## Uncle Jack

Forero said:


> If it was important that he went but unimportant when he went, "went" is a better choice than "had gone". "Had to" is stronger and more definitely in the past than "should".
> 
> "It is important that he should go to Madrid." = "It is important that he ought to go to Madrid." (multiple meanings possible for both)
> 
> Also possible:
> 
> Present: "It is important that he shall go to Madrid."
> Past: "It was important that he should go to Madrid."


From a BrE perspective, "should go" is exactly equivalent to the present subjunctive "go".

"It is important that he should go to Madrid" = "It is important that he go to Madrid". He hasn't yet gone to Madrid, perhaps he won't go, but it is important that he does go.

"It was important that he should go to Madrid" = "It was important that he go to Madrid". He hadn't yet gone to Madrid at the time the sentence is set, perhaps he never did go, perhaps the time he was meant to go to Madrid hasn't yet arrived, but it was important at that time that he should go to Madrid at some later time.

Of course, in BrE we also use the indicative in place of the subjunctive, so these two sentences might well be rendered in BrE as "It is important that he goes to Madrid" and "It was important that he went to Madrid", which brings us back to the original post and the first reply:  "It was important that he went to Madrid" is ambiguous.


----------

