# It's time you went and brought back that rock



## Cloud88

-'_It's time you went and brought back that rock!'
-'What rock?'
-'The one I gave you last fall.' _from Memoires of a geisha

Why does it use the simple past??  He wants her to go and bring it now..so why do not say : 'it's time you go and bring back that rock'?

Any help and suggestion will be very appreciated.


----------



## JustKate

It's just another way - a very conversational way - to say the same thing. This is dialogue, so the author is trying to sound conversational, and in conversation, we do say things like "It's time you went and..."

By the way, _back_ ("bring back that rock") has to be in there no matter which version is used.


----------



## dn88

But doesn't "It's time to go and bring back that rock" mean "It's time *we both* (or 'all', if there were more people) went and brought back that rock", while the original version clearly suggests that it's *you* who should go and bring it back?


----------



## Ania R.

If we specify the person who is supposed to do something after the expression "It's time" we need to use the past simple tense (past simple, not past perfect). So it's OK to say _It's time to go and bring back that rock_, but that would possibly indicate that the speaker is one of the people who are going to be performing that action. If the speaker wants someone else to do something and wants to specify who that person is, it has to be _It's time you/they *went*. _Note that it's possible to use this construction also when the speaker is the one that's supposed to do something, eg. _It's time I went hom_e or _It's time we stopped wasting time_. What you have to remember is that after _it's time + person_ the verb needs to be in the past simple tense.

Cross-posted with* dnn88.* BTW, I agree with you and that's why I tried to touch upon that aspect in my explanation.


----------



## JustKate

Sorry, I thought you were asking about the structure, not the precise wording. My apologies if I confused you.

Yes, as you surmise and Ania has explained "It's time to go and ___" could mean mean "It's time we go," although not necessarily. The structure can be used to refer to the other person or both people: 
_It's time you go and bring back that rock.
It's time I go and bring back that rock.
It's time we go and bring back that rock._

If you just say "It's time to go and bring back that rock," the meaning is unclear. The speaker could mean both, but he could also intend it as an instruction, e.g., "It's time (for you) to go and bring back that rock."

Likewise _went_ can be used to refer to either the other person, both people or the person who's speaking: 
_It's time you went and brought back that rock.
It's time we went and brought back that rock.
It's time I went and brought back that rock._


----------



## Cloud88

> By the way, _back ("bring back that rock") has to be in there no matter which version is used._






> (past simple, not past perfect)


      Sorry,  Speed didn't help me. 


JustKate said:


> Yes, as you surmise and Ania has explained "It's time to go and ___" could mean mean "It's time we go," although not necessarily. The structure can be used to refer to the other person or both people:
> _It's time you go and bring back that rock.
> It's time I go and bring back that rock.
> It's time we go and bring back that rock._
> 
> If you just say "It's time to go and bring back that rock," the meaning is unclear. The speaker could mean both, but he could also intend it as an instruction, e.g., "It's time (for you) to go and bring back that rock."
> 
> Likewise _went_ can be used to refer to either the other person, both people or the person who's speaking:
> _It's time you went and brought back that rock.
> It's time we went and brought back that rock.
> It's time I went and brought back that rock._



I don't think to have understood well. From your last post I assume not to be the person to act the reason of using the simple past. Could then either the subjunctive present and past be interchangeable? Is it only a matter of style?


----------



## Wordsmyth

JustKate said:


> _[...] _The structure can be used to refer to the other person or both people:
> _It's time you go and bring back that rock.
> It's time I go and bring back that rock.
> It's time we go and bring back that rock. [...]_


 That's not a construction I'd use, Kate. For me it would be:
- _It's time for you to go / for me to go / for us to go and bring back that rock_.

Or (as we all agree)
- _It's time you went / I went / we went and brought back that rock_.

But maybe there's a regional difference in usage.

Ws


----------



## e2efour

In BE (at least) we do not say _It is time you go and ..._
We must s_ay __It is time I/you/they went/.
_We can also use the past progessive:_ It is time I was making dinner.

_It is simply a set phrase to use the past tense with_ it is time.
_


----------



## JustKate

Perhaps it is AmE. Certainly it's very familiar to me. If you google "you go and," you'll find lots of examples. Not all of them are pertinent to this thread, but many are.


----------



## dn88

I don't consider it to be the 'true subjuctive', although some say it is. I like to call it 'unreal past'. When I was in school, I was always taught to use the past tense with "it's (high/about) time".

Why doesn't it really behave like a subjunctive construction?
_
It's time I were getting ready. _

_It's time (that) he go to bed. _ 

I guess some might utter such sentences but I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't.


----------



## Cloud88

I found this http://www.grammaring.com/its-high-time

Maybe the rule works like that:
It's time to say goodbye (now is the moment/the moment is arrived) present subj
It's time you said goodbye (you had to do it before, but now you can't wait anymore) past subj

Could it work?


----------



## dn88

Cloud88 said:


> I found this http://www.grammaring.com/its-high-time
> It's time to say goodbye (now is the moment/the moment is arrived) present subj


No, you can't have a 'to-infinitive' in a subjunctive structure.


----------



## Cloud88

dn88 said:


> No, you can't have a 'to-infinitive' in a subjunctive structure.


You're right 

So:It's time you say goodbye (now is the moment/the moment is arrived) present subj
     It's time you said goodbye (you had to do it before, but now you can't wait anymore) past subj

It could be really easy to learn a rule as simple as this but there's something that does not convince me. In my topic the speaker was the very one the time to act depends on. It was a convenant in which the moment he succeded to save his company, the girl had to fetch that rock...Some sentences before this state he explained he managed to do it so the time has arrived. There's no reason to think that the girl was late in any task.


----------



## dn88

Cloud88 said:


> You're right
> 
> So:It's time you say goodbye (now is the moment/the moment is arrived) present subj


Well, now it looks like the subjunctive, but the question is: How many people would actually say that?

And I don't see the distinction you make between the two.

"It's time you said goodbye" means, as you put it, "the moment has arrived for you to say goodbye".


----------



## Cloud88

So the formula     It's (high/about) time + sub + present subjenctive  does not exists, or even if it exists it's quite totally unused.  

Thank you friends!


----------



## dn88

Cloud88 said:


> So the formula     It's (high/about) time + sub + present subjenctive  does not exists, or even if it exists it's quite totally unused.


I wouldn't jump to that conclusion, but I'm pretty sure most English speakers prefer to use the past tense with "it's time" (or "it's time to + infinitive").


----------



## Wordsmyth

In the sentence in question,_"went" _is indeed the past subjunctive. The past subjunctive doesn't refer to past actions. It's used when speaking of things that haven't yet happened, but that are desired/needed/suggested/preferred in the present or the future. (The present subjunctive also does that, but suggests a greater degree of probability or intent or insistence: compare "It's time he went" with "I suggest that he go")

... and writing that has made me realise that "It's time you go ..." (Kate's #5) is in fact the present subjunctive. That would tie in with Kate's suggestion of its use as an instruction (a more insistent suggestion than the past subjunctive "It's time you went"). Although it's not in my active vocabulary (nor in e2efour's), it seems it's not uncommon to use it that way in AmE.


dn88 said:


> _[...] _Why doesn't it really behave like a subjunctive construction?
> _
> It's time I were getting ready. _
> 
> _It's time (that) he go to bed. _
> 
> I guess some might utter such sentences but I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't.


 I'd say it does behave like a subjunctive construction. The reason that most people wouldn't say those things isn't that it's not a real subjunctive, or that those sentences are wrong — it's that the subjunctive has gone out of fashion (at least where it sounds different from the indicative). _"It's time we were getting ready"_ sounds quite natural (but it's still a subjunctive). It could be argued (and sometimes is by modernist grammarians) that _"It's time I was getting ready"_ is still a subjunctive construction, where _"was" _is not the indicative, but a modern variant of the subjunctive _"were" — _though that's getting into the realms of "How long is a piece of string?".

Same thing with _"It's time that he go to bed"._ It's a valid subjunctive construction (for those who use the present subjunctive after "It's time"), but most people avoid the subjunctive in favour of _"It's time for him to go to bed"_ — or they use the past subjunctive _"It's time he went to bed"_, probably unknowingly, because it doesn't sound like a subjunctive.





Cloud88 said:


> So the formula     It's (high/about) time + sub + present subjenctive  does not exists, or even if it exists it's quite totally unused. _[...] _


 But it *is* used. See JustKate's post #5.

Ws


----------



## e2efour

I find it curious that _It's time he left _it should be described as a subjunctive.
It is referred to in the grammar books that I know as the _hypothetical past.

_Another reason why it is odd to talk about subjunctive here is that we do not say_ It's time she were going.

_See the previous discussion at_ http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1128613.
_


----------



## Wordsmyth

Hypothetical past, unreal past, irrealis mood ... the grammar books are full of varied terminology (though many that I've seen refer to using the subjunctive to express the hypothetical past, etc, rather than proposing those things as moods or tenses in their own right). For me, the strongest justification for saying it's a subjunctive is that _"It's time (that) ..."_ expresses necessity or suggestion, which are amongst the fundamental conditions for using the subjunctive. 

Also, in _"It's time she went"_, there's no concept whatsoever of a past action, so it makes no sense to consider it as the past indicative. But the 'tenses' within the subjunctive mood don't carry the normal temporal significance. As for not using the progressive form,_ "__It's time she were going"_, I believe that's just because it fell into disuse a long time ago (part of the gradual decline of the subjunctive), not because it was never said. In fact I have heard it said, in the south-west of England, where I was brought up. In the ignorance of youth, I thought it was just 'bad English', but there's evidence that it's a carry-over from the Old and Middle English subjunctive.

Ws


----------



## e2efour

Speculation about the "subjunctive" is not very helpful.
The form of the verb is the past tense (in its simple or progressive form).

If I heard anyone say _It's time I were going to bed_ or _It's time a woman were elected president_ I would assume that their native language was not English, they were speaking some form of dialect or that they were trying (in vain) to bring back the subjunctive into this type of construction.

See http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2177813.


----------



## velisarius

e2efour said:


> Speculation about the "subjunctive" is not very helpful.
> The form of the verb is the past tense (in its simple or progressive form).
> 
> If I heard anyone say _It's time I were going to bed_ or _It's time a woman were elected president_ I would assume that their native language was not English, they were speaking some form of dialect or that they were trying (in vain) to bring back the subjunctive into this type of construction.
> 
> See http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2177813.



I agree with all that e2efour says, but it seems US speakers see it differently. I got lost on this thread; I hope cloud88 isn't as confused as I am.


----------



## JustKate

I am nearly sure we've talked about this before, but generally speaking in AmE, the true subjunctive (when it is used, which it isn't consistently) is used for things that are not only contrary to fact but are unlikely to or will never be fact. I will never be you, therefore I'd say "If I were you," not "If I was you." I am unlikely to ever be rich, so I'd say "If I were a rich woman," not "If I was a rich woman." I will never (alas) be the all-powerful queen of grammar, therefore I'd say "If I were the all-powerful queen of grammar," not "If I was." 

But I will definitely go to bed sometime, so I'm not going to say "It's time I were going to bed." I'd instead say "It's time I was going to bed." And I am quite confident that a woman will be elected president in the fairly near future, so I'm not going to say "It's time a woman were elected president"; instead I'd say "It's time a woman was elected president."

Therefore, the situation suggested by Cloud 88 in the OP isn't a place that I'd use the subjunctive. I don't even think it's "hypothetical," unless perhaps I'm misunderstanding the term. We can (in AmE) use both "It's time you go and bring back that rock" and "It's time you went and brought back that rock," and the two sentences, as far as I can tell, mean exactly the same thing: that the person being addressed should get the rock now. If there is a difference in emphasis or meaning, I can't discern it.


----------



## Wordsmyth

e2efour said:


> Speculation about the "subjunctive" is not very helpful.
> The form of the verb is the past tense (in its simple or progressive form).
> _[...] _
> ... or that they were trying (in vain) to bring back the subjunctive into this type of construction._ [...]_


 I've never understood why the English subjunctive causes so much controversy. The fact that it mostly has the same form as the indicative doesn't alter the fact that it exists. If the sentence is expressing a mood of wish, desire, suggestion, preference, necessity, possibility, or various other grammatically "unreal" states involving actions that have not yet occurred, then the mood is subjunctive, regardless of the form used (no speculation involved ). In Old English, the subjunctive form of all verbs was distinguishable from the indicative. As fusion occurred over time, they increasingly resembled each other, but no-one denied that the subjunctive was the subjunctive. If all the singular _were_-subjunctives were suddenly replaced by _was_ (as is indeed gradually happening, in spite of Kate's neat definition of 'true subjunctive'), the mood still wouldn't be indicative: they'd be '_was_-subjunctives'. Mood is primarily about the kind of thing you're saying (fact, desire, command, ...), not about the tools you use to say it.

Here's a parallel. Flat adverbs have the same form as their corresponding adjectives. They look identical, but they have different functions. I wouldn't say that it's not very helpful to know whether a word is being used adverbially or adjectivally — it helps in understanding the structure and sense of a sentence. 

Similarly, knowing whether a verb is being used subjunctively or indicatively can help in understanding the sentence. Cloud88's opening post is a good example: "Why does it use the simple past??  He wants her to go and bring it now ...". Well, of course it would be nonsense if it were the simple past (indicative), because there's no sense of past action, and the subordinate clause _"you went"_ doesn't have an indicative role. But as long as the concept of the subjunctive mood is understood, knowing that _"went"_ is a subjunctive here (or a hypothetical past, or an irrealis mood, or whatever alternative name you prefer) should help in understanding why it's used — it's because _"It's time you went"_ is a suggestion, referring to an action that has not yet occurred.  

Ws


----------



## Cloud88

> Hypothetical past, unreal past, irrealis mood ... the grammar books are full of varied terminology (though many that I've seen refer to using the subjunctive to express the hypothetical past, etc, rather than proposing those things as moods or tenses in their own right). For me, the strongest justification for saying it's a subjunctive is that _"It's time (that) ..." expresses necessity or suggestion, which are amongst the fundamental conditions for using the subjunctive.
> 
> Also, in "It's time she went", there's no concept whatsoever of a past action, so it makes no sense to consider it as the past indicative. But the 'tenses' within the subjunctive mood don't carry the normal temporal significance. As for not using the progressive form, "It's time she were going", I believe that's just because it fell into disuse a long time ago (part of the gradual decline of the subjunctive), not because it was never said. In fact I have heard it said, in the south-west of England, where I was brought up. In the ignorance of youth, I thought it was just 'bad English', but there's evidence that it's a carry-over from the Old and Middle English subjunctive._



In my opinion, as a foreigner who wants to learn the language, is more simple to learn this peculiar tense  as subjenctive. In English there are too much variations of tense according with intention, possibility etc.. to bear in mind.
So if I've understood: even if it's old fashioned, it is still used unaware as simple past......up to lose the 'were' use of the subj.
The present subj is still used but not in the form 'It's time..'


But I don't undertand yet the difference between the past subjenctive and its progressive form.
i.e. What's the difference between: It's time I was to bed   and  It's time I was going to bed???


----------



## JustKate

You can't (in modern English) say "It's time I was to bed." That's a thoroughly antiquated structure, I'm afraid.


----------



## Cloud88

How would you say it?


----------



## JustKate

"It's time I was going to bed" or "It's time I went to bed" (or, of course, "I need to get to bed!"  )

Shakespeare could and did say "It's time I was to bed," but we don't say it that way any more.


----------



## JamesM

To put it another way, we wouldn't say "I am to bed" in present-day language, either.  It would be more typical (at least in AE) to hear "I'm off to bed" or "I'm going to bed now".  So to put it into this quirky subjunctive/past progressive/whatever-you-call-it that we use, it's "It's time I was off to bed" or "It's time I was going to bed now".


----------



## Cloud88

So what's the difference between the two of them 


> "It's time I was going to bed" or "It's time I went to bed"


Are them totally interchangeable?


----------



## JustKate

They are for me. I'm sure I use them both. 

I'm trying to think of the circumstances when I might use one or the other, and all I can say is that if there is a difference, it's not a difference that I can articulate. If there is any difference in meaning, it's so subtle that I am not consciously aware of it, though I might recognize it if somebody else could articulate it.


----------



## JamesM

They are very similar.  The second one, to me,  vaguely indicates some sort of social standard or external expectation.  It is similar in meaning to me to "I really should already be in bed by now".   It's not clear what is placing that "should" on the person, whether it's a personal expectation or an external expectation or obligation. 

In other words, "It's time I was going to bed" means "I should go to bed now".  "It's time I went to bed" means "I'm already late in getting to bed" or "I am at risk of being late" or "(Someone) would expect me to be in bed by now".  That's not a great explanation but that's the general tone of the two in my interpretation.

"It's time you talk to your boss" means "Now is the time to talk to your boss about this."  This is advice.
"It's time you talked to your boss" means "You really should talk to your boss.  If you don't, you're not doing the right thing." This is a judgment based on your social/ethical obligation, given the situation.

That's just my interpretation.


----------



## velisarius

>"It's time you talk to your boss" means "Now is the time to talk to your boss about this." This is advice.

This is the thing that puzzles me, because it seems so odd to my British ears. Do you mean to say you would also use "It's time he talk to his boss"?


----------



## JamesM

No, I would probably say "It's time for him to talk to his boss".  (And, if anything, it would be "It's time he talk*s* to his boss".  I'm using the present tense in "It's time you talk to your boss.")


----------



## Wordsmyth

Cloud88 said:


> _[...]_ Are them they totally interchangeable?



In a similar vein to James, I'd say that the progressive tense in this construction is a bit less abrupt or less immediate.

We're visiting friends, and it's getting late. We're not in a rush to leave, but we don't want to overstay our welcome. I'd probably say "It's time we were leaving". The progressive tense somehow suggests that leaving is a process that could take some time (possibly including staying on for a while if they suggest it ).

On the other hand, I'd say "It's time we left" if we had the firm intention of leaving immediately or very soon (because we have to get up early tomorrow, or because our hostess is yawning, or because otherwise we'll miss the last metro, ...).

Ws


----------



## JustKate

I think James and Wordsmyth have managed to articulate what I could not, and they did a good job, too!


----------



## Cloud88

Wordsmyth...you're always totally exhaustive. I really like your way of explaining things. I have to praise you 
However thanks to everybody.....always patience and helpful.


----------



## dn88

Cloud88 said:


> How would you say it?



It's time I was in bed.


----------



## Cloud88

> It's time I was in bed.


----------



## velisarius

I got a clearer picture from the Grammarphobia blog,which examines this question of the subjunctive after "It's time ...", under the heading "Has the subjunctive gone nuclear?"

The writers' opinion is that, after "It's time", the verb "he went" or "was going" is generally in the indicative, though a subjunctive construction is possible": "such usages [of the subjunctive] were more common in the past": "It's time that he go". Nowadays, they say, it is very formal or literary. They also say that "It isn't unusual to find the present tense instead". (Confirming JustKate's posts) 

It's time _I was/that I were_​ in bed too.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Glad you found that a clearer picture, veli.. Each to his own, of course, but personally I'm not at all convinced by their reasoning (or rather the lack of it).

_"Here, we’re using a past tense imaginatively to speak of a future action."_ — Why?  Not a word of explanation to justify that imaginative use! It sounds a bit like creative accounting: "Here we're using 'profit' imaginatively to speak of a loss" (although in that case the motive is pretty evident, whereas for the grammar question it's a total mystery)!

_"Some grammarians would classify these sentences as subjunctive, since they refer to an action that’s remote and unrealized."_ — Indeed they would (and do), and the reason for that is given (_"since they refer to ..."_) ...

... _"But we don’t agree with this interpretation." — _Umm, why not?  — Again, no reason given! (Perhaps it would be "'Cos we do"!)

Judging by the name of the website, and by some of the content I found on it, I seem to detect an underlying rebellion against traditional grammar just because it is. 

Then there's an astonishing statement near the bottom of that blog article: _"__In these cases, the verb in the second clause is always in the infinitive, as in “I suggest she walk,”_ ..." — The infinitive?!  How can "she walk" be infinitive?! 

Sorry, but the more I read that blog, the more Grammarphobia-phobic I become.

Ws


----------



## velisarius

I agree about the "infinitive" thing Wordsmyth, it was weird indeed, but I didn't analyse the article in such detail since it confirmed my own prejudices.


----------

