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. :lol:

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. :shock:

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. :shock:

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

 

[engee30]

I've read that it's dead. :shock:

:up: In one book it reads that the subjunctive is a pale shadow of what it used to be. Almost extinct.

 

[garret]

:up: In one book it reads that the subjunctive is a pale shadow of what it used to be. Almost extinct.

What the book says is in a way true...BUT


The subjunctive is tested in English Language Exams such as the FCE / CPE (Cambridge) and ECCE / ECPE (Michigan) and one will certainly find it in every single book that is meant to prepare you for English Language Exams.

 

[5jj]

That's quite interesting. We'll see how others, especially teachers, look at it.

You were right, engee. There is no future subjunctive in English. There's no future indicative, either.

Present Indicative:......he is......he comes
Present Subjunctive:...he be.... he come

Past Indicative: .........he was ..he came
Past Subjunctive:.......he were. he came

 

[Kotfor]

Not a teacher

Yes, some say that there are two tenses in English. I am pretty much sure that this concept is correct but not useful for majority.

Were he a talented musician I would invite him to play.
Be he a talented musician I will invite him to play.

 

[5jj]

Yes, some say that there are two tenses in English. I am pretty much sure that this concept is correct but not useful for the majority.
Most writers on grammar today agree that there are two tenses in English. Most people find a realistic view of the language very useful. The belief that will + bare infinitive was the future tense caused enormous problems for both learners and teachers.

I do not quite see the relevance of the two sentences that follow, especially as the second is not acceptable modern English.

Were he a talented musician I would invite him to play.
Be he a talented musician I will invite him to play.

5

 

[Kotfor]

1) I can say only about my personal experience as for this concept of two tenses in English. I have never seen good results achieved by average students using this concept. I still must admit that only Russian speaking students are implied. May be for some students it is a useful thing.
2) Be It Right Or Wrong.
Be that as it may.

 

[5jj]

Be It Right Or Wrong.
Be that as it may.

Kotfor, if you are trying to make a point, please say what the point is, rather than just give two 'sentences' with no explanation.

If you wish to know if those two are acceptable English, the answer is 'yes', though the first would very rarely be met in BrE. They are not, however, normally acceptable on their own; each is part of a longer utterance.