# it's time we went to the station



## JoyMark

Hi there, 

I was wondering which one of the following options is the correct one and why. Thank you So very much for your help. 

We are late, it's time we-----(went/ go / were) to the station.
it's time we WENT to the station? why- in the past tense?

Thanks again!!!!

Joy


----------



## Matching Mole

The past tense form is used to describe things that haven't actually  happened, but that we think should have happened, or that we wish to  happen; this is sometimes called the "unreal past". It's also used in  conditionals expressing hypothetical or imagined events.

"It's time we went" could be expressed in other ways that use "went" as  the unreal past, which "imagine" a desired event as if it had already  happened:
"It would be good if we went."
"I'd rather we went."

"It's time we went" is a rather oblique usage of the unreal past, as it  does not have the markers (conditional, wish/preference) of the above  examples, but nevertheless, that is what is happening.


----------



## suzi br

Sigh, what a hard language this is.  I love your answer, Matching Mole.  

Do you think it is also because our entire way of describing future events is not shown in veb endings (the way past tenses are marked)  so we end up with a variety of ways of describing future time that use bits of verbs' morphology?


----------



## Brioche

JoyMark said:


> Hi there,
> 
> I was wondering which one of the following options is the correct one and why. Thank you So very much for your help.
> 
> We are late, it's time we-----(went/ go / were) to the station.
> it's time we WENT to the station? why- in the past tense?
> 
> Thanks again!!!!
> 
> Joy



It isn't actually a past tense. 

It is the _subjunctive_, which happens to have the same form as the past tense, with the exception of the verb "to be"


It's time I were in bed. 
It's time we went to the station.

It's time she were in bed.
It's time she went to the station.


----------



## Loob

Brioche said:


> It isn't actually a past tense.
> 
> It is the _subjunctive_


I prefer MM's "unreal past" explanation for this particular usage, because I could never bring myself, however formal the situation, to say "it's time I were"/ "it'e time she were". 

It would have to be 
_It's time I was in bed._
_It's time she was in bed._


PS: Incidentally, at least one of the earlier threads suggested that AmE is happy to use the present subjunctive alongside the past:_ It's time she go_ as well as _it's time she went_. This sounds very,* very* strange to me: the past tense is always the safe answer.


----------



## iskndarbey

"It's time she go" sounds perfectly natural to me (an American) as well as "it's time she went" but I agree that I would never say "it's time I were in bed". I don't think it's helpful or accurate to classify the verbs in this structure as subjunctive. My best advice is just to memorize that "it's time that..." is normally followed by a past tense. It's just one of those phrases that behaves somewhat strangely and can be difficult to analyze using grammatical generalizations, like 'rather'. Better to memorize how it's used and not worry about it too much. We frequently use past progressive tenses as well: "It's time I was going." (Never, never, never, never "it's time I were going"!)


----------



## Spira

Isn't English great?
I disagree with absolutely everything that iskndarbey has just written, but then we were brought up at least 5000 kms apart in two countries that actually fought each other not to be together (at least,that was the reason one of them fought).
I also disagree on this thread with Loob, which surprises me more, and would have answered identically to Brioche if he hadn't got there before me.
It's obviously time I were quicker on the draw !


----------



## iskndarbey

What do you disagree with? Would you say "It's time I were going"?


----------



## Spira

iskndarbey said:


> What do you disagree with? Would you say "It's time I were going"?


 
Absolutely. Sounds normal to my ears.
PS I hit the button too quickly on my answer, so had to complete it later by editing.


----------



## Spira

Loob said:


> Everything, Spira???
> 
> You disagree with his statement that "it's time she go" is acceptable to him as an AmE speaker?
> 
> You disagree with his suggestion that he wouldn't say "it's time I were in bed"?


 
I knew someone would pick up on that, but wrote it anyway !
Of course I don't disagree that he accepts "its' time to go", I disagree that it is acceptable (very strange indeed to me. Maybe it's ebonics?)
And no, I don't disagree that he wouldn't say "it's time I were in bed", but I myself would say it.

Thank you for being so precise, Loob.
I also disagree with your answer to the actual question


----------



## iskndarbey

That's really funny, I had no idea that form ("It's time I were going") could be used in British English. Certainly never on this side of the pond. I assume you wouldn't say "It's time she go", as we would over here?


----------



## caupolican

You could always avoid the whole dilemma and say "It's time (for us) to go to the station".


----------



## Loob

Spira said:


> I knew someone would pick up on that, but wrote it anyway !
> Of course I don't disagree that he accepts "its' time to go", I disagree that it is acceptable (very strange indeed to me. Maybe it's ebonics?)
> And no, I don't disagree that he wouldn't say "it's time I were in bed", but I myself would say it.
> 
> Thank you for being so precise, Loob.
> I also disagree with your answer to the actual question


You'll see I deleted my post before you answered it, once I realised you'd expanded your earlier post


----------



## iskndarbey

Spira said:


> I knew someone would pick up on that, but wrote it anyway !
> Of course I don't disagree that he accepts "its' time to go", I disagree that it is acceptable (very strange indeed to me. Maybe it's ebonics?)
> And no, I don't disagree that he wouldn't say "it's time I were in bed", but I myself would say it.
> 
> Thank you for being so precise, Loob.
> I also disagree with your answer to the actual question



Nothing to do with Ebonics or AAVE, it's just a garden variety present subjunctive, which seems mostly moribund in British English.


----------



## Loob

iskndarbey said:


> That's really funny, I had no idea that form ("It's time I were going") could be used in British English.


It's pretty unusual, I think (clearly Spira would disagree).

Here's the _Cambridge Grammar of the English Language_ on the subject:





> This construction ... hardly allows an irrealis:_ it is high time he was/?were in bed._


(Irrealis is the CGEL term for a past subjunctive, and the _?_ means "of questionable grammaticality".)


----------



## JamesM

Since the original question is about "went/go", I'd like to chime in on that aspect.

I would use "went":

It's (high) time he went to bed. 
It's (high) time he goes to bed. 

The second one sounds very strange to me.

It's time I started getting my work done. 
It's time I start getting my work done. 

Once again, the second one sounds very strange to me.

(As far as the was/were thing goes, I'm not sure why we would use "I were" when we simply shifted everything into the past in all other cases: "I went", "I started", etc.  To me, "I was" makes more sense.)


----------



## JoyMark

Thank you so very much guys!!!

All the best to you all!




Joy


----------



## LQZ

1 It is (high) time for her to go to school.
2 It is (high) time she went to school.

Dear all,

Could you explain to me whether sentences 1 and 2 are talking about the same thing? If not, what is the difference?

Thanks.


----------



## Pawa

Hi LQZ,

Sentence 1 simple implies that she should go to school.
Sentence 2 means that it is late, and she has forgotten the action.

It is better to use "high" only in the second version. In that case, you emphasize that it is too late.


----------



## JamesM

I don't think of it as "late", only that there is an urgency or social correctness about it.  She hasn't gone to school yet and she _should_.


----------



## Valvs

JamesM said:


> (As far as the was/were thing goes, I'm not sure why we would use "I were" when we *simply shifted everything into the past* in all other cases: "I went", "I started", etc.  To me, "I was" makes more sense.)



And how do you know you were  using the past tense rather than the past subjunctive in all other cases? After all, the both forms are identical for all verbs but "be", as Brioche noted earlier. 
For what it's worth, when I was studying English at school in 1970s, we were taught to use the past subjunctive here: "It's time he were in bed", etc. (I guess I should add that our textbooks were highly prescriptive and rather outdated in that they taught the variety of the language that had been used by the English educated classes in the first half of the 20th century.)


----------



## JamesM

Good point, Valvs.


----------



## Loob

Valvs said:


> For what it's worth, when I was studying English at school in 1970s, we were taught to use the past subjunctive here: "It's time he were in bed", etc.


As I've said in previous threads, "It's time he were" is not an option for me; I could only use the past indicative "It's time he was".


----------



## Thomas Veil

caupolican said:


> You could always avoid the whole dilemma and say "It's time (for us) to go to the station".


That would be my preference.  But between "It's time I was in bed" and "It's time I were in bed", I prefer the latter.  And I'm American.



Spira said:


> Of course I don't disagree that he accepts "its' time to go", I disagree that it is acceptable (very strange indeed to me. Maybe it's ebonics?)


Wow.  Are you referring to the apostrophe at the end of "its"?  If not, I find it bizarre that you have a problem with it.


----------



## Valvs

Loob said:


> As I've said in previous threads, "It's time he were" is not an option for me; I could only use the past indicative "It's time he was".



Actually, you've said that in this very thread, so I am well aware of your opinion . But the fact remains that in a fairly recent past (several decades ago), grammar books insisted on using the past subjunctive in that construction. Perhaps the past indicative is acceptable today as well.


----------



## Loob

Valvs said:


> Actually, you've said that in this very thread, so I am well aware of your opinion . But the fact remains that in a fairly recent past (several decades ago), grammar books insisted on using the past subjunctive in that construction. Perhaps the past indicative is acceptable today as well.


See post 15 for the CGEL view.  But that doesn't exclude other options.


----------



## sergio11

I don't understand... Is Loob saying that it is OK to use the past indicative for this construction? That is not right in any language! It has to be a subjunctive, like it or not.


----------



## Loob

Yes, I am.  It's past indicative, not past subjunctive, for me.



Pawa said:


> Hi LQZ,
> 
> Sentence 1 simple implies that she should go to school.
> Sentence 2 means that it is late, and she has forgotten the action.
> 
> It is better to use "high" only in the second version. In that case, you emphasize that it is too late.





JamesM said:


> I don't think of it as "late", only that there is  an urgency or social correctness about it.  She hasn't gone to school  yet and she _should_.


I agree with both these points.


----------



## sergio11

Loob said:


> Yes, I am.  It's past indicative, not past subjunctive, for me.



The indicative mood expresses a factual statement of an action that has occurred, is occurring or will occur. It does not express an action that should be occurring, should have occurred or should occur in the future. If you agreed with the statement by JamesM, 



JamesM said:


> She hasn't gone to school  yet and she _should_.


 then you should consider it to be a subjunctive. 

Greetings

_Post Scriptum: By the way, I understand perfectly the irony of a non-English speaking person, at least not natively, trying to engage in linguistic debates about English with a British citizen. Don't think I have not noticed that. I hope you forgive my audacity._


----------



## e2efour

Interesting (not really!) that none of the corpuses (BNC, COCA, COHA) record anyone saying (or writing) "it's time I were".


----------



## panjandrum

Thomas Veil said:


> That would be my preference.  But between "It's time I was in bed" and "It's time I were in bed", I prefer the latter.  And I'm American.
> ...


Interesting.

Regardless of the opinions of the theoreticians on this point, the normal BE form is "It's time I was in bed."
I don't believe I have ever heard "It's time I were ..." or "It's time he were...".
___________________________________



e2efour said:


> Interesting (not really!) that none of the corpuses (BNC, COCA|, COHA) record anyone saying (or writing) "it's time I were".


Almost likewise for "it's time he were".
I found one, in COHA, dated 1894.
 Well, then, my good fellow, *it**'s* *time* *he* *were* up.
I found one of "it's time she were" in COHA, dated 1996.
 *It**'s* *time* *she* *were* wed, she thought.

_________________________________________


Let's do the high-risk Google check 
"It's time I were" ... ... 23 results.
"It's time he were" ... ... 18 results.
"It's time she were" ... ... 5 results.

I think I am convinced that this form is not naturally used in any variety of English.


----------



## newname

My favourite grammar book, A Practical English Grammar 4th by A J Thompson and A V Martinet reads

It's time subject + past subjunctive
But
It is time + I/he/she/it CANNOT be followed by *were*
 It's time I was going
 It's time I were going


----------



## sergio11

newname said:


> My favourite grammar book, A Practical English Grammar 4th by A J Thompson and A V Martinet reads
> 
> It's time subject + past subjunctive
> But
> It is time + I/he/she/it CANNOT be followed by *were*
> It's time I was going
> It's time I were going


This shows that the rule is to use the past subjunctive, and that the verb to be is a special case.  You cannot make a general rule based on one irregular case. 

The confusion stems from the fact that, in English, the past subjunctive and the past indicative have identical morphologies, and people think they are using one when they are using the other. 

So yes, you are right in that you cannot say "it's time I were..." or "it's time she were...," but as the Thompson and Martinet grammar points out, that is a special case, and with all other verbs the subjunctive is used.

However, the subjunctive has been dying a slow death in English, and I found the following quote:



> Through  the years, some have advocated the formal extinguishment of the  subjunctive. W. Somerset Maugham said, "The subjunctive mood is in its  death throes, and the best thing to do is to put it out of its misery as  soon as possible."


I think this is what we are witnessing.

Greetings


----------



## Thomas Tompion

LQZ said:


> 1 It is (high) time for her to go to school.
> 2 It is (high) time she went to school.
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Could you explain to me whether sentences 1 and 2 are talking about the same thing? If not, what is the difference?
> 
> Thanks.


 I can't see much difference between them.


----------



## CapnPrep

e2efour said:


> Interesting (not really!) that none of the corpuses (BNC, COCA, COHA) record anyone saying (or writing) "it's time I were".


Not with _I_, as far as I can tell, but with some 3rd person singular pronouns. I found a few examples of _it were_, but they don't sound grammatical to me:


Yeah it's about time *it were*  shaken up now that Labour Party er this government er, erm they're agreeing to this (BNC)
For your army, it is more than time *it were* gathered and about you (COHA)
And of course they are vastly outnumbered by the thousands of occurrences of _time it was_.

More interesting (really) is the occurrence of the past subjunctive with _something_ in COCA/COHA:


It's about time *something were* done about the high cost of welfare for the politically well-connected. (COCA)
  it is time *something were* said of the duty of the individual to his own integrity, to his conscience, in the good round eighteenth century term (COHA)
Assuredly, it is time *something were* done to put a stop to the constant and progressive demoralization of the public mind by vulgar, morbid, and impure plays  (COHA)
  In this case the numbers are much closer: 12 _was_ vs 6 _were_. And while I would personally still use _was_ here, _were_ doesn't sound at all ungrammatical to me.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

sergio11 said:


> This shows that the rule is to use the past subjunctive, and that the verb to be is a special case. You cannot make a general rule based on one irregular case.
> 
> The confusion stems from the fact that, in English, the past subjunctive and the past indicative have identical morphologies, and people think they are using one when they are using the other.
> 
> So yes, you are right in that you cannot say "it's time I were..." or "it's time she were...," but as the Thompson and Martinet grammar points out, that is a special case, and with all other verbs the subjunctive is used.
> [...]


As the forms are identical, I don't see that one can say with confidence which one is using. Thompson and Martinet aren't necessarily right about calling for the past subjunctive after _it's time that_, and I notice that they aren't in line with this summary of scholarly opinion on the subject.

It's even more interesting that people, mostly, I notice, people brought up on romance languages, who are naturally used to the subjunctive, insist that we are using a past subjunctive, even though in the case of the verb _to be_, where the indicative and subjunctive forms are different (so it's evident which we are using), we can be seen very often to prefer the indicative.

That bit about _to be_ being a special case was particularly breath-taking, and Thompson and Martinet cannot point out what is not the case, so I doubt if they have pointed out anything there. To say that the one case where our choice is clear is an exception and should be discounted, and that in all the other cases, where we can't tell from the form, we are using the subjunctive, looks specious to me. I wouldn't want evidence like that on my side in a court of law.


----------



## CapnPrep

I agree that the possibility of 1st and 3rd person singular _were_ is the most reliable criterion for identifying the past subjunctive, and that this argument mostly fails for the expression _it's time X_. However, I don't believe that this is the only criterion, nor a necessary one. As we know, there are vanishingly few constructions where singular _were_ must be used, and in many contexts speakers now prefer _was_. So it should not be surprising if some constructions, like _it's time_, now completely disallow _were_.

There are good reasons, I think, to say that we are still dealing with a past subjunctive. sergio11 has already mentioned them:

We use a past tense form that does not have past tense meaning.
The context is irrealis / contrary-to-fact / volitional / etc.
If you wish to give absolute priority to the morphological criterion (the near-impossibility of singular _were_), then you can say that _it's time_ is followed by a past indicative. But we shouldn't simply ignore the fact that _It's time we went to the station_ is actually quite unlike _We went to the station_. From a learner's point of view, this must be rather mysterious, and I think that pointing out the similarity between _it's time_ and past subjunctive constructions like irrealis _if_ and _wish_ makes good sense. 

What does not make sense is insisting that exactly one of the labels "past indicative" or "past subjunctive" must absolutely be correct (and that the other one must absolutely be wrong).


----------



## panjandrum

I haven't been following all of this, but it appears from the last few posts that the suggestion is that native BE speakers use past subjunctive for verbs that do not have a distinctive form for the past subjunctive, and past indicative for the one verb that does have a distinctive form.

Why bother to confound learners with this somewhat eccentric notion?

It's time that <simple past>.
Easy.


----------



## 0bito

But you people do actually say "If I were you, I would..." and that "I were" is not past simple, but subjuntive. So you DO use subjuntive :O


----------



## Thomas Tompion

0bito said:


> But you people do actually say "If I were you, I would..." and that "I were" is not past simple, but subjuntive. So you DO use subjuntive :O


I'm not clear, Obito, whom  you are addressing with this mildly opprobrious 'you people', but if you include me in the term, I'd reply that the fact that we use a past subjunctive in other cases doesn't mean that we use it in the case we are considering in this thread - _it is time that + ?_.


----------



## DonnyB

0bito said:


> But you people do actually say "If I were you, I would..." and that "I were" is not past simple, but subjuntive. So you DO use subjuntive :O


Yes, we do - or at least, I do.  I'm a great fan of the subjunctive and this awful use of "If I *was* you, I would ... " _really_ grates on me. 

However, as TT correctly points out (post #40) the example you're citing is a different grammatical construction from the original one under discussion here.  In the OP's example "It's time we *went* to the station" you can't tell whether that's a subjunctive or an indicative, because the verb forms are the same.  If you change it to one where they're different and try "It's time *he were going* to the station", then I agree with Loob (post #23) that in modern British English we would not use a subjunctive there.  To me it sounds positively stilted almost to the point of being archaic.


----------



## JamesM

I don't see how it can be indicative because I would expect "It's time he goes to the station" for the indicative.  Am I missing something?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JamesM said:


> I don't see how it can be indicative because I would expect "It's time he goes to the station" for the indicative.  Am I missing something?


I'm tempted to say that _went_ can be a past indicative, so the question might be why is it in the past, rather than why is it in the subjunctive?


----------



## DonnyB

JamesM said:


> I don't see how it can be indicative because I would expect "It's time he goes to the station" for the indicative.  Am I missing something?


Ah, but surely that's the *present* tense of the indicative (the present subjunctive would be "It's time he _go_ to the station").

The OP's question was why we use the *past* tense "went", and that's evolved into this discussion as to whether it's the simple past tense of the indicative or a past tense subjunctive.


----------



## JamesM

I understand.  I guess what I am saying is that I assume it is more than simply the past indicative because there is no reason not to use the present indicative.  That is why I have always assumed it was the subjunctive.  I don't see any reason to switch to past indicative when it is "It *is* time he..."  Basic agreement of tenses would call for the present indicative, wouldn't it?


----------



## 0bito

JamesM said:


> I understand.  I guess what I am saying is that I assume it is more than simply the past indicative because there is no reason not to use the present indicative.  That is why I have always assumed it was the subjunctive.  I don't see any reason to switch to past indicative when it is "It *is* time he..."  Basic agreement of tenses would call for the present indicative, wouldn't it?



I would normally think that "It is time" requires either "to+infinitive" or "subject+subjuntive". It is kinda hard for me to understand why would "went" be an indicative verb rather than a subjuntive one, whether it be in the past or present tense


----------



## JamesM

This BBC Learning English answer appears to see it as the subjunctive:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/radio/specials/1535_questionanswer/page42.shtml


----------



## Thomas Tompion

That article has set me thinking, James.  How can he be so confident it's a subjunctive?

Is it wrong in AE to say _It's time I was going?_  I think that would be quite possible in BE.

The ngrams (_click_ here and then click the blue *search lots of books*) suggest it's possible in both languages: I wonder what mood and tense you consider the 'was' to be.

I suspect you'd prefer to say _It's time I went_, but that's not quite the point.


----------



## Loob

I don't think the BBC author is confident, TT: he says he *thinks* it's the subjunctive....

I used to think we used past subjunctive after "It's time" too, until I realised that "It's time I _were_ X" was, for me, completely out of the question.

James, you said in post 16 that "[It's time] I was" makes more sense than "[It's time] I were": have you changed your mind?

-----

PS. Post 38 is still one of my favourite panj posts .


----------



## neal41

DonnyB said:


> Yes, we do - or at least, I do.  I'm a great fan of the subjunctive and this awful use of "If I *was* you, I would ... " _really_ grates on me.
> 
> However, as TT correctly points out (post #40) the example you're citing is a different grammatical construction from the original one under discussion here.  In the OP's example "It's time we *went* to the station" you can't tell whether that's a subjunctive or an indicative, because the verb forms are the same.  If you change it to one where they're different and try "It's time *he were going* to the station", then I agree with Loob (post #23) that in modern British English we would not use a subjunctive there.  To me it sounds positively stilted almost to the point of being archaic.


It is often helpful to alter examples in order to use verbs which have different indicative and subjunctive forms.  DonnyB has done that.  As a speaker of American English, I would not hesitate to say, "It's time he were going to the station" or "It's time I were leaving." or "It's time I were in bed."  I would not use 'was' in these sentences.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

neal41 said:


> It is often helpful to alter examples in order to use verbs which have different indicative and subjunctive forms.  DonnyB has done that.  As a speaker of American English, I would not hesitate to say, "It's time he were going to the station" or "It's time I were leaving." or "It's time I were in bed."  I would not use 'was' in these sentences.


That's interesting, Neal.

I could find no similar example in the COCA (AE Corpus) of this - it was always_ It's time I/he was._

I share Loob's view that _It's time I/he were _would be out of the question in BE.

I wonder how common your view may be.


----------



## neal41

Thomas Tompion said:


> I could find no similar example in the COCA (AE Corpus) of this - it was always_ It's time I/he was._
> 
> I share Loob's view that _It's time I/he were _would be out of the question in BE.
> 
> I wonder how common your view may be.



Based on a Google search "It is time he were" is still alive.  649,000 hits in contrast with 4,820,000 for "It is time he was".  To DonnyB "It is time he were" sounds almost archaic.  In general I think the use of the subjunctive is slowly disappearing in English.  In another 100 years what is already archaic in BE may also be archaic in AE.

I have just noticed that long ago in post #4, Brioche, a speaker of Australian English, introduced examples with 'she were' and 'I were'.  He/she didn't indicate that they were strange.  Perhaps in the Empire we do a better job of preserving our language than is done in the Motherland.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I think we should keep a general discussion of the use of the subjunctive out of this thread, where I'm not clear that it's relevant.

I should mention, Neal, that there is as strong thread of academic opinion which holds that the subjunctive is being used more in BE now than was the case fifty years ago.  

Look at the ngrams rather than those Google hits, which can be terribly misleading.


----------



## Copyright

neal41 said:


> Based on a Google search "It is time he were" is still alive.  649,000 hits in contrast with 4,820,000 for "It is time he was".  To DonnyB "It is time he were" sounds almost archaic.  In general I think the use of the subjunctive is slowly disappearing in English.  In another 100 years what is already archaic in BE may also be archaic in AE.


I just came upon this thread ... and this post. I don't know what's happened in the intervening months, but here are the Google results for the two expressions:

"It is time he were" – 24 results, one of which is this thread.
"It is time he was" – 281 results. 

These numbers are obtained by going to the very last page of results, not by reading the number that instantly appears on the first page.


----------



## Exp

Loob said:


> It's pretty unusual, I think (clearly Spira would disagree).
> Here's the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language on the subject:
> 
> 
> 
> This construction ... hardly allows an irrealis: it is high time he was/?were in bed.
> 
> 
> 
> (Irrealis is the CGEL term for a past subjunctive, and the ? means "of questionable grammaticality".)
Click to expand...


I found the sentence on p. 1004 of the_ Cambridge Grammar of the English Language_, but on p.88 it also says "We need a different term for 1st/3rd person singular _were_: we call it irrealis.... Irrealis category applies only to _be_ with a 1st/3rd person singular subject." Does not CGEL reserve the term "Irrealis" specifically for _be_ verb when it says "This construction differs from the others in that it hardly allows *an* irrealis"?


----------



## Loob

I'm not sure what point you're making, Exp. This thread is about the use of the past tense after "it's time".
The _Cambridge Grammar of the English Language_'s use of the term "irrealis" is off-topic in this thread, I think.


----------



## Exp

Loob said:


> I'm not sure what point you're making, Exp. This thread is about the use of the past tense after "it's time".
> The _Cambridge Grammar of the English Language_'s use of the term "irrealis" is off-topic in this thread, I think.


I thought the CGEL meant that you just don't use _were_ ("irrealis") after "It is time...," but that the clause after "It is time..." is still of subjunctive mood?


----------



## Forero

"It's time" is grammatically more like "I hope" than like "I wish". Here is my own assessment:
_
It's time for him to go to the station.
It's time he goes to the station.
It's time he was at the station.
It's time he go to the station.
It's time he were at the station. 
It's time I were in bed. 
It's time I were leaving.
It's time he were going to the station._

But with "It's time", past tense means something is late in happening, not just on time. For example, "It's time he was at the station" means he ought to be at the station but he is not there, whereas "It's time for him to go to the station" just means he needs to go to the station now if he is not already on his way.

To me, the sentences I have marked with "" do not sound completely wrong, but I don't know what makes them different from the ones I have marked with "".


----------



## PaulQ

From “A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles: Volume 4” by Otto Jespersen (first published 1954, but from the 2007 edition)


> *It is high time he left*​
> 9.6. After _it is (high) time _it is usual to use the preterit [edit PQ= simple past]. Originally this was in the subjunctive because it was looked upon as hypothetical, but as in the majority of instances there was no formal difference between the subjunctive and the indicative, and as the hypothetical element was not so clearly before the mind as in conditional sentences, the indicative came to be used . Thus the preterit has come to indicate a future time.


I think Jespersen has got it right again - I do like Jespersen.


----------



## sunyaer

Forero said:


> ..
> 
> _
> It's time for him to go to the station.
> It's time he goes to the station.
> It's time he was at the station.
> It's time he go to the station._
> 
> 
> But with "It's time", past tense means something is late in happening, not just on time. For example, "It's time he was at the station" means he ought to be at the station but he is not there, whereas "It's time for him to go to the station" just means he needs to go to the station now if he is not already on his way.
> ...


Could you please explain what these two sentences mean as well?
"It's time he goes to the station."
"It's time he go to the station."


----------



## Florentia52

sunyaer said:


> Could you please explain what these two sentences mean as well?
> "It's time he goes to the station."
> "It's time he go to the station."


Where did you find these sentences, sunyaer? In what context were they used? If you wrote them, what do you want them to mean?


----------



## sunyaer

Florentia52 said:


> Where did you find these sentences, sunyaer? In what context were they used? If you wrote them, what do you want them to mean?


In post #58 by Forero in this thread, where Forero gave these sentenses with a green tick at the end showing they sounding good to him.


----------



## Florentia52

Ah, I see now. Well, perhaps Forero will come along and explain what he had in mind.


----------



## Forero

sunyaer said:


> Could you please explain what these two sentences mean as well?
> "It's time he goes to the station."
> "It's time he go to the station."


To me they mean the same as "It's time for him to go to the station."


----------



## lingobingo

Neither of them would be used in BE.


----------



## sunyaer

Forero said:


> sunyaer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please explain what these two sentences mean as well?
> "It's time he goes to the station."
> "It's time he go to the station."
> 
> 
> 
> To me they mean the same as "It's time for him to go to the station."
Click to expand...

Would you say them yourself?


----------



## JamesM

sunyaer said:


> Could you please explain what these two sentences mean as well?
> "It's time he goes to the station."
> "It's time he go to the station."



I wouldn't use either one. As Forero wrote, I would say "It's time for him to go to the station."


----------



## Forero

sunyaer said:


> Would you say them yourself?


Probably not.


----------



## sunyaer

Forero said:


> Probably not.


Can I understand you to be saying that these two sentences are understandable, but not natural?


----------



## Forero

sunyaer said:


> Can I understand you to be saying that these two sentences are understandable, but not natural?


I wouldn't call them unnatural, but the "for him to go" version is the one that comes most easily to me, and probably to most native English speakers.

Actually, come to think of it, the "he go" version makes the speaker sound like someone who makes rules or gives orders.


----------



## sunyaer

Forero said:


> ..
> Actually, come to think of it, the "he go" version makes the speaker sound like someone who makes rules or gives orders.


"he go" version is a mandative mood. What about "it is time they go to the station"? Does this "they go" version sound like someone who makes rules or gives orders too?


----------



## Forero

sunyaer said:


> "he go" version is a mandative mood. What about "it is time they go to the station"? Does this "they go" version sound like someone who makes rules or gives orders too?


Yes.


----------



## Jaykay1053

Though this thread is 8 years old, it has received 69, now 70 replies, so I just couldn't resist taking a look! Although Canadian and American English are similar, I notice that the sentences mentioned in the post before this one are not ones I have ever heard, said or read so I thought I'd chime in. First, to the original question:

Beginners: Look for  and don't waste time on everything else!
Advanced: Below, in purple, you'll find alternative ways of saying the same message as the thread's original sentence does.



JoyMark said:


> We are late, it's time we-----(went/ go / were) to the station.
> it's time we WENT to the station? why- in the past tense?



Perhaps surprisingly, it's not the past tense but the past subjunctive tense because the word, _that_, is implied and calls for that tense. (For the cases of _to go_, see Conjugate "to go" - English conjugation - bab.la verb conjugator)

*A. It's time that* [+pronoun in nominative case][+past subjunctive of _to go_][+adverb or phrase indicating location]=
It's time [_that_ is implied] I/you/he/she/we/they went to bed/to the station. or
_It's time we left._

From an earlier post:


neal41 said:


> [...] As a speaker of American English, I would not hesitate to say, [1. ]"It's time he were going to the station" or [2. ]"It's time I were leaving." or [3. ]"It's time I were in bed."  I would not use 'was' in these sentences.


Note: For convenience, I have numbered the sentences in the quote above. The numbers correspond with the numbers below.

*B. Conditional? *
1. "It's time he were* going* to the station"
Here it looks to me as though the author wants to use the *conditional*, which calls for the infinitive, rather than the present participle.

This is how I think you could put the sentence together:
nominative/subjective case for your pronoun + the conditional of _to be_ (as the auxiliary) plus the *infinitive* of *go*=
_It's time [that] I/you/he/she/we/they were *to go*..._ but it is a bit old-fashioned. (See Section C below for a more usual construction where I live.)

It's more common to see the conditional in an 'iffy' situation like this [If...then]:
_If he were to go to the station now, [then] he might not miss his train_.

We could just follow Section A. above to say this:
"We are late! It's time [that] we went to the station."

We could also refine the verb to emphasize that it's the departure that matters more than the journey to the station:
_We are late! It's time [that] we *left for* the station._ (Note, _left for the station_ conveys the idea of departing, not just travelling. It's the departing that needs to happen because _we are late_.)

*C. It's time for *[+ pronoun in dative/objective case][+infinitive][+optional: adverb or phrase indicating location and/or time]=

_It's time for me/you/him/her/us/them to leave for the station at once._
This is perhaps the most usual expression we would use where I live.

"It's time for us to leave!" (note the *dative* case _for us_) or as in Section A. above...
"It's time [that] I/you/he/she/they/we left for the station. (note the *nominative* case _that we_)

2. "It's time* I were leaving*."
"It's time [that] I left."
"It's time for me to go..."

3. "It's time I were in bed." (A bit formal. Instead, I would say,
"It's time I went to bed" as in Section A. above)
"It's time you were in bed." (as an admonition to a child, perhaps, who doesn't want to go to bed)
"It's your bedtime!" or "It's my bedtime!"  (as exclamations)

Hope that helps someone!
Jaykay


----------



## Forero

Jaykay1053 said:


> *B. Conditional? *
> 1. "It's time he were* going* to the station"
> Here it looks to me as though the author wants to use the *conditional*, which calls for the infinitive, rather than the present participle.
> 
> This is how I think you could put the sentence together:
> nominative/subjective case for your pronoun + the conditional of _to be_ (as the auxiliary) plus the *infinitive* of *go*=
> _It's time [that] I/you/he/she/we/they were *to go*..._ but it is a bit old-fashioned. (See Section C below for a more usual construction where I live.)


"Were to go" sounds really strange to me. I'd prefer "were going". Why not just say "It's time he went to the station"?


----------



## Jaykay1053

Hi Forero,

Here's where I wrote that very idea. Glad we're on the same page. 

*A. It's time [that (implied)]* [+pronoun in nominative case][+past subjunctive of _to go_][+adverb or phrase indicating location]=
It's time [_that_ is implied] I/you/he/she/we/they went to bed/to the station. or
_It's time we left._
_
Jaykay_


----------



## Loob

Jaykay1053 said:


> 2. "It's time* I were leaving*."


I wouldn't say this either.

But I'd happily say "It's time I was leaving".


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Loob said:


> I wouldn't say this either.
> 
> But I'd happily say "It's time I was leaving".




I spent ten minutes looking at the Corpuses (BE and AE) on this.  I couldn't find an example illustrating a dissenting view.


----------



## sunyaer

Forero said:


> Yes.


Is there a distinction between the sounding of "he goes" and "he go" version?

For "they go", there is only one version. Does "it is time they go" always sound someone giving order?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

sunyaer said:


> Is there a distinction between the sounding of "he goes" and "he go" version?
> 
> For "they go", there is only one version. Does "it is time they go" always sound someone giving order?


We've been telling you to say 'It is time they went', of course.  That would certainly be the standard form in British English.


----------



## Forero

sunyaer said:


> Is there a distinction between the sounding of "he goes" and "he go" version?


I don't know of any.





> For "they go", there is only one version. Does "it is time they go" always sound someone giving order?


It does to me. If that is not what is meant, I would stick to "It is time for them to go."

And of course if I mean "It is time they went", I just say it.

I would not say "It is time they were to go", but I could very well say "It is time they were going."


----------



## lingobingo

Thomas Tompion said:


> We've been telling you to say 'It is time they went', of course.  That would certainly be the standard form in British English.


It’s the *only* form in British English.  And it’s by far the preferred form even in American English, if Ngrams are anything to go by. But I had great difficulty even finding one that recognised the construction (and even then, it only worked with “we”, not “they”). The same parameters didn’t recognise the “go” version at all in British English.

NB: I couldn’t get my link to work.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

lingobingo said:


> It’s the *only* form in British English.


Couldn't you say 'It's time for me to go'?  I certainly could.


----------



## lingobingo

Of course, but that’s entirely different from “It’s time they go”.


----------



## e2efour

From COCA corpus:

22 occurrences of _it's time they_, of which 5 have the present tense (e.g. " Write to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and tell them it's time they live up to their name.").
7 occurrences of _it is time they_, of which 1 has the present tense ("Statesmen used to understand this. It is time they do so again.").

The past tense/modal past/modal preterite is used more often. But please don't call it the _past subjunctive._


----------



## stephenlearner

I has just come across this thread. The discussions in this thread are inspiring. Just one more observation from my mother tongue: we say "it is time they went" in Chinese. 

Here is a quote from #59: 
9.6. After _it is (high) time _it is usual to use the preterit [edit PQ= simple past]. Originally this was in the subjunctive because it was looked upon as hypothetical, but as in the majority of instances there was no formal difference between the subjunctive and the indicative, and as the hypothetical element was not so clearly before the mind as in conditional sentences, the indicative came to be used . Thus the preterit has come to indicate a future time. 

Yes, in Chinese, in this context, we also use the past simple to indicate a future time. So interesting! Curious about other languages.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

stephenlearner said:


> [...]
> Yes, in Chinese, in this context, we also use the past simple to indicate a future time. So interesting! Curious about other languages.


But there are no tenses in Mandarin Chinese.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Mandarin uses a basic verb form and adds adverbial expressions of time to function as time indicators.  That is very different from saying you are using a tense.


MrMuselk said:


> [...]
> I find it to be the only standard one, as LingoBingo said before.


So you, like him, see a consistent difference in meaning between 'It's time they went' and 'It's time for them to go', do you?

I think there are occasions where the meanings are very similar.

Perhaps you think that 'It's time for them to go' is not standard English.  In which case I cannot agree.


----------



## stephenlearner

Thomas Tompion said:


> But there are no tenses in Mandarin Chinese.


In Chinese, the verbs have no inflection. So, we don't change a base verb to its past form; rather, we add some adverbs after the verbs or we add a (particle?) at the end of the sentence to make it refer to the past.

To express "It is time they went", we say "they should go + (a particle to express the past)". "Go + a particle to express the past" can be regarded as "went" in English. So, if I translate it into English literally, it is "they should went" (ungrammatical), or "they should have gone"(grammatical).

I suddenly realize that in English, people use *should have done* to say that someone didn't do something, but it would have been the correct thing to do it.

So in English, can I say "they should have gone" to mean "it is time they went"?

Whether I can or cannot, the Chinese version "they should have gone" is using the past form to refer to the present or future.


----------



## sdgraham

stephenlearner said:


> So in English, can I say "they should have gone" to mean "it is time they went"?


No. "It's time we went" means "It's time to go to the station NOW."
See, for example: it's time we went home
If you search for *time went*, you will find more threads on the subject.


----------



## MrMuselk

Thomas Tompion said:


> So you, like him, see a consistent difference in meaning between 'It's time they went' and 'It's time for them to go', do you?
> 
> I think there are occasions where the meanings are very similar.
> 
> Perhaps you think that 'It's time for them to go' is not standard English.  In which case I cannot agree.


I find that *it’s time they went* means more of a nearby location, or that they would shortly return, and *it’s time for them to go* to mean that they should leave to not come back for a certain time, but as you say, there are occasions were they are similar. *It’s time for them to go*, for me, is a no man’s land. I only agreed with Lingo in that *it’s time they went* is the more standard and versatile construction, and if it were the only one, could perfectly substitute *it’s time they go*. Of course, I _could _use it, and it would make sense to me in _some _sentences, but, like the usage of the apostrophe and no _s _to indicate various people with a possession, (The boys’ book) , I don’t use it, but I don’t disagree or agree with it.


Thomas Tompion said:


> So you, like *him*, see a consistent difference in meaning [...]


Erm... I think LingoBingo is actually a woman, not a man. It clearly says it on her profile.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

MrMuselk said:


> [...]
> Erm... I think LingoBingo is actually a woman, not a man. It clearly says it on her profile.


I was leaving you an easy means of escape.

Like many people who care about language, I go on the alert when people use the language of absolutes (_always, only,_ etc.)


----------



## MrMuselk

Well, I am still divided. It is certainly the standard, and *could* be the only acceptable one, but I find that it’s time for them to go can be used in other situations, and is standard English, but not as good as the other example. I repeat: I certainly was misleading in my earlier post; I only partly agree with Lingo.


Thomas Tompion said:


> I was leaving you an easy means of escape.


I don’t get it. Where did you leave a means of escape?  What have I done to annoy you? I do get that you find that people who say that “only one thing, and that one thing only is correct” are very annoying. In English, there is nearly always an alternative.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

MrMuselk said:


> Well, I am still divided. It is certainly the standard, and *could* be the only acceptable one, but I find that it’s time for them to go can be used in other situations, and is standard English, but not as good as the other example. I repeat: I certainly was misleading in my earlier post; I only partly agree with Lingo.
> 
> I don’t get it. Where did you leave a means of escape?  What have I done to annoy you? I do get that you find that people who say that only one thing and that thing only is correct very annoying. In English, there is nearly always an alternative.


Relax.  I'm not annoyed in the least.

As you say, in English it's hard to find instances where absolutes are justified.

I find unjustified claims of absolutes misleading, not annoying.  It's hard enough to be helpful in a few words in the forum.

The consolation is that threads mostly vanish, though one's errors can come back years later to haunt one, for we have learners here who take us seriously, and tell their students that things must be right because they've read them here.  This makes me feel an obligation to try to be accurate.


----------



## MrMuselk

Thomas Tompion said:


> Relax. I'm not annoyed in the least.


That’s relieving. But anyway: Why is it there is still a disagreement more than 10 years after the forum started? Some people think, like Lingo, think there is only one standard form, other people, like you, think the reverse, that there are several acceptable forms. I just think that there is one form which is best for a situation, and the other “non-standard” forms, like most of English nowadays, can still be used. Could we just leave it at that? Added later:


> The consolation is that threads mostly vanish, though one's errors can come back years later to haunt one, for we have learners here who take us seriously, and tell their students that things must be right because they've read them here. This makes me feel an obligation to try to be accurate.


This is becoming worryingly true. I have said things to other non-English users that I later find out to be wrong, but that information has already been taken in erroneously, thought to be correct. I do agree that accuracy is the most important thing, here, which is why some of these arguments, in my eyes, make the threads lose their helpfulness, due to there being several opposing views, with no way to know which is right.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

MrMuselk said:


> [...]the other “non-standard” forms, like most of English nowadays, can still be used.


This raises questions about what you mean by 'non-standard'.

If you think that 'it's time for them to go' is in any way non-standard, then I think you are just wrong.

Look at these two extracts from recent books, using what you call a 'non-standard' form.

_It is time for art historians to stop standing by in cowardice and make responsible evaluations of..._ The Chemistry in Britain. London: Royal Society of Chemistry, 1992.
In your world is_* It is time that art historians stopped standing by in cowardice and made etc.*_ somehow standard where the other is non- or sub-standard?

_It is time for men to come out of the nursery._ On The Edge. Cillian Cross, Oxford: OUP, 1989
And_* It is time that men came out of the nursery*_ is somehow superior?

If I seemed cross earlier, it was because I think your advice to learners was misleading and therefore damaging.


----------



## MrMuselk

I’ll go and delete my post. I don’t think they’re non-standard; I just couldn’t find the correct words. I think they’re not the ones suggested for this situation, and supposedly, as Lingo said, not the correct forms. I am trying not to side with anyone, but I’m finding it hard to express myself well. I’ve always found it hard to express my thoughts in words, that’s all.
Just to clarify, these can certainly be used, and are perfectly fine, but are not the forms that would be listed. I would actually prefer to use them in some cases. Try to be patient with me, I’m not the best at English, and have only been her for a month. Thanks for understanding.


----------

