22

Why do we use the simple past but not the present or future in the following expressions:

Don't you think it's time we went a little further

Don't you think it's time we ate

Don't you think it's time we went home

Community
  • 1
Noah
  • 13,490

2 Answers2

19

It's an example of the past subjunctive:

Past subjunctive

Like the term present subjunctive, past subjunctive can be misunderstood, as it describes a form rather than a meaning. The past subjunctive is so named because it resembles the past indicative in form, but the difference between them is a difference in modality, not in temporality. For example, in If that were true, I would know it, the word were (a past subjunctive) has no past-tense sense and instead describes a counterfactual condition in the present.

In addition to appearing in counterfactual if clauses (If I were there, he would know it), the past subjunctive form also appears in that clauses expressing a wish that is unlikely to be fulfilled. Usually the main-clause verb in this circumstance is wish, as in I wish that he were here now; but occasionally some other expression implying an unlikely wish is seen, as in It is high time (that) he bought a new car or I would rather that he did that. (The latter example can also be recast in the present subjunctive, expressing doubt but not as much doubt as the past subjunctive: I would rather that he do that).

Your examples are correct, and replacing them with simple present tense verbs wouldn't be standard usage.

To give the issue an extra spin, the article goes on to say that the present tense is also valid, with a slight twist in meaning:

In contrast, hoped-for things that may possibly occur take the indicative. In this circumstance, often the main clause verb is hope, as in I hope that he comes now. Likewise, in It is high time (that) he buys a new car, there is a real possibility that he will indeed do so.

FumbleFingers, in the comments below, questions the validity of the present tense construction. The outcome of our discussion (such as it was) was that it appears to be significantly less common (therefore either newfangled, dialectical, or both), and it is dubious whether most people would accept it. So my best advice is to take that paragraph with a grain of salt, and use the past tense if you want to use this type of construction.

Community
  • 1
Daniel
  • 57,547
  • I can't agree your last paragraph. Introducing the word "high" doesn't change anything. The standard idiomatic usage of It's time [pronoun] [verb] always puts [verb] in the past tense (presumably because [verb] should already have been done** at the time of speaking). – FumbleFingers Mar 22 '12 at 15:19
  • Well, if you notice, "high" was in the middle paragraph too; it wasn't introduced in the third. You can remove high and the point would be the same. Past that, are you saying that It's time [noun] [present tense verb] is incorrect? – Daniel Mar 22 '12 at 15:21
  • I guess I'd better think a bit more before nailing my colours too firmly to the mast, but my gut feel is "It's time he buys a new car" is not acceptable, and I can't yet think of any variation on it that would be. Maybe it's a dialectal usage? – FumbleFingers Mar 22 '12 at 15:30
  • It could be. Google has 157 results for about time he comes and 401 for about time he came. Not that it proves much, but at least it's in use somewhere and for some reason. – Daniel Mar 22 '12 at 15:33
  • GB has 11 results for "it's time he goes", against 31,000 for "it's time he went". I stand my ground. – FumbleFingers Mar 22 '12 at 15:37
  • 2
    BTW, that's 225 results, not 31,000. And google.com shows 198 vs. 342, a much closer ratio. – Daniel Mar 22 '12 at 15:42
  • ...even more extreme, Google Books has four instances of "about time he comes", two of which are duplicates, and one is an accidental collocation across two sentences. On the other hand, it says there are About 278,000 results for "about time he came". I'm definitely standing pat - no "dialectal usage" is going to wash with me. – FumbleFingers Mar 22 '12 at 15:43
  • 1
    Which is actually 144 results. Not sure why Google feels the need to multiply the number by 1000 before showing it to us. – Daniel Mar 22 '12 at 15:44
  • let us continue this discussion in chat – FumbleFingers Mar 22 '12 at 15:46
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers There. Check my edit. I'm still leaving room for the present tense (just in case) while stating the fact that is isn't standard and the OP should avoid it. – Daniel Mar 22 '12 at 17:16
  • 1
    "Your examples are correct, and replacing them with simple present tense verbs wouldn't be standard usage." Can you provide a citation? I'm not convinced this is true. – amcnabb Mar 22 '12 at 17:49
  • The Wikipedia article establishes that the examples are correct, and researching occurrences of the present tense variation reveals that it is vastly outnumbered by the past tense. The corpuses to which I have access bear that out to my satisfaction. That's as to whether it's standard. I'm not sure about the grammaticality. I'd be inclined to think that it is grammatical, but it would take a greater analyst than I to prove it to any comprehensive degree. – Daniel Mar 22 '12 at 17:59
  • @FumbleFingers Would this be considered grammatically correct: "Don't you think it's time to be going home?"? I'm asking because that is how I would say it, but maybe it's L2 interference. – Mari-Lou A Aug 28 '13 at 03:17
  • @Mari-Lou: There's nothing wrong with that, or indeed with "It's time to go* home!"*, but they're not the usage under discussion. – FumbleFingers Aug 28 '13 at 03:32
  • @FumbleFingers Thank you for your quick reply, but if the question is asking "why" we say we went and not we go could it not mean the OP was unaware of alternative phrasings? Is there a difference in meaning between the three forms? – Mari-Lou A Aug 28 '13 at 03:39
  • @Mari-Lou: I think the reason why idiomatically we use past rather than present subjunctive here is subtle and idiomatic. But I don't see OP as asking for alternative phrasings (this is ELU, not ELL). Any differences in meaning will also be subtle, idiomatic, and not universally recognised consistently. – FumbleFingers Aug 28 '13 at 03:55
  • 1
    Searching Google books before 1800, then the construction was usually it's time I tell you or it's time I should tell you. I believe the first should be interpreted as the present subjunctive and the second as the should-subjunctive, where should is the subjunctive of shall, and an indication of future action. The only time the past subjunctive was used was when the action was viewed as unlikely. For example: 'tis time he were hanged, indeed, for I know no other amends he can make us. – Peter Shor Aug 16 '15 at 00:14
-3

For all three examples, the present sounds perfectly fine:

Don't you think it's time we go a little further?

It's time we eat.

Don't you think it's time we go home?

and they have pretty much the same meaning as your given sentences. The future is not allowed:

*It's time we will eat.

Also, the present progressive doesn't work:

*It's time we are eating.

This gives evidence that the first alternative given 'It's time we ate' is not really the past but is more likely a vestigial past subjunctive form.

Community
  • 1
Mitch
  • 71,423