it is high time...

[Nathan Mckane]

Hello dear teachers.

I have a feeling that the part in bold in the following sentence is wrong Am I right?

He went on to say that it is high time for the Board of governers to focus on assurance of supply by initiating sincere negotiations to come up with a legally binding measure on assuring access to a fuel supply, a view that is also shared by many analysits.

Thanks.

[Mehrgan]

Hello dear teachers.

I have a feeling that the part in bold in the following sentence is wrong Am I right?

He went on to say that it is high time for the Board of governers to focus on assurance of supply by initiating sincere negotiations to come up with a legally binding measure on assuring access to a fuel supply, a view that is also shared by many analysits.

Thanks.

***not a teacher***
I think it's fine. Your verb (focus) is in infinitive because you have for before the noun (the board of government). But it could also be put as, '...it is/was high time that the board of government focused on...'.

Let's see what others posters will say about this.

[The Dude]

Phew! Try reading this sentence out loud in one breath.

As Mehrgan says, your extract is fine, but I'd say it's not quite as fluent as it could be.

Although the mismatch of tenses (he went on to say it is high time) could just be justified if he'd said this only an hour ago, I would prefer to see them agree (he went on to say it was high time).

The use of 'high time' is fine here, in its normal sense of saying that an action is overdue or should have been done by now.

The usual way with 'high time' is to follow it with the past simple, even if the situation is in the present, so I would have started this sentence with: 'He went on to say it was high time the board of governors focused on assurance...'. This is really the same as Mehrgan has already said.

Thereafter the sentence becomes much too verbose and badly needs a haircut.

[TheParser]

Hello dear teachers.

I have a feeling that the part in bold in the following sentence is wrong Am I right?

He went on to say that it is high time for the Board of governers to focus on assurance of supply by initiating sincere negotiations to come up with a legally binding measure on assuring access to a fuel supply, a view that is also shared by many analysits.

Thanks.

***** NOT A TEACHER *****


Mr. Mckane,


(1) Mr. Raymond Murphy in Grammar in Use has some information

that may be helpful.

(2) It is time for someone to do something.

It means exactly what it says:

It's time to go home. = It's time for us to go home. (My example:

It's 5 p.m. at work. Let's stop working. It's time (for us) to go home.

See you tomorrow.)

(3) It is time/ high time (that) someone did something.

Mr. Murphy says:

We use this structure ... especially when we are complaining

or criticizing. His example: It's time (that) the government did

something about pollution.

Mr. Murphy says that "high time" makes "time" even stronger.

(NOTE: He does not use the word "that" in his examples. I included

"that" in parentheses because most books say that the complete

sentence includes "that." In speech, however, many people leave it

out -- as Mr. Murphy has.)

***** CONCLUSIONS *****

(1) It is time (no "high") for the Board of Governers to focus on the

problem. = Ok, everyone. We had agreed last week to discuss the

problem today. Today has arrived. Let's start focusing on the

subject, shall we?

(2) It is (high) time (that) the Board of Governors focused on the

problem. = The Board of Governors should already have focused on the

problem. The Board has wasted a lot of time. C'mon, everybody.

Stop wasting more time. You really have to start focusing now!!!

I am guessing that this is what your sentence means.

My source:

Raymond Murphy with Roann Altman, Grammar in Use/ Reference and

Practice For Intermediate Students of English (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1990).

[Kotfor]

The usual way with 'high time' is to follow it with the past simple

Dude, I agree with what you said. The only little thing I would like to address from another point of view for the sake of pedantic accuracy is that - Past Simple is not the best term here. In fact it is the present subjunctive though it looks like Past Simple.

[engee30]

In fact it is the present subjunctive though it looks like Past Simple.

Kotfor, you mean past subjunctive, not present, right?

[Kotfor]

I think the way you call it is correct. However, there is an alternative way to deal with it. I am aware of two ways to call it


Present Subjunctive
(Future Subjunctive) - BE


Past Subjunctive
(Present Subjunctive) - WERE


Perfect Subjunctive
(Past Subjunctive) - HAD BEEN

[engee30]

I think the way you call it is correct. However, there is an alternative way to deal with it. I am aware of two ways to call it


Present Subjunctive
(Future Subjunctive) - BE


Past Subjunctive
(Present Subjunctive) - WERE


Perfect Subjunctive
(Past Subjunctive) - HAD BEEN

That's quite interesting. We'll see how others, especially teachers, look at it. I've read that the subjunctive is often called different ways.

[The Dude]

I've read that it's dead.

Yes, you're right: this is a subjunctive use (high time you did); it's the form that is past simple.

[Kotfor]

I've read that it's dead.

People like saying that using this dead subjunctive all the time.