Just about time you retired

[shootingstar]

. . .
Dr. Gibbs: I've decided to raise your spending money twenty-five cents a week. Not, of course, for chopping wood for your mother., because that's a present you give her, but because you're getting older - and I imagine there are lots of things you must find to do with it.
George: Thanks Pa
Dr. Gibbs: Let's see - tomorrow's your payday. You can count on it - Hmm. Probably Rebecca'll feel she ought to have some more too. Wonder what could have happened to your mother. Choir practice never was as late as this before.
George: It's only half past eight, Pa.
Dr. Gibbs: I don't know why she's in that old choir. She hasn't any more voice than an old crow. . . . Traipsin' around the streets at this hour of the night . . . Just about time you retired, don't you think?
George: Yes, Pa.
George mounts to his place on the ladder.

Laughter and good nights can be heard . . .
(Thornton Wilder, Our Town, Act I)

I have an issue with retired. It's past simple but I would expect present simple here. What does the past simple express in this sentence? Maybe you have to add another word. What does the whole sentence express?

 

[probus]

This usage is common in English. I guess that it would be correct to call it idiomatic, though I'm no grammarian. Here are some similar examples:

It's high time you stopped smoking. (Stop would be unnatural).

It wouldn't be a bad idea if we bought them a gift. (Buy would be unnatural).

 

[shootingstar]

This usage is common in English. I guess that it would be correct to call it idiomatic, though I'm no grammarian. Here are some similar examples:

It's high time you stopped smoking. (Stop would be unnatural).

It wouldn't be a bad idea if we bought them a gift. (Buy would be unnatural).

Thank you. However, I don't see any reason to use the past simple in the cited sentence Just about time you retired. And I don't see how the past simple of retire changes the meaning of this sentence. What does the past simple express there?

 

[Barque]

I don't see any reason to use the past simple in the cited sentence Just about time you retired.

The reason is that that's how people normally say it. It's idiomatic, as Probus says.

And I don't see how the past simple of retire changes the meaning of this sentence.

It's not a question of whether "retire" would change the meaning. It's about what's natural and usual.

The statement could also have been worded, "About time she retired", but not "About time she retires".

 

[5jj]

The use of the past tense distances the action of the verb in reality. "(It's) just about time you retired "- the person addressed is not actually retiring (yet).

 

[shootingstar]

The use of the past tense distances the action of the verb in reality. "(It's) just about time you retired "- the person addressed is not actually retiring (yet).

In which way of meaning does the past simple distance the action of the verb? Does the past simple actually have the meaning of past tense there?

 

[emsr2d2]

In which way of meaning does the past simple distance the action of the verb? Does the past simple actually have the meaning of past tense there?

If it had "the meaning of past tense", the person would have already retired. They haven't. Dr Gibbs is expressing his opinion that George has reached a point where he should retire.

Consider these:
It's time you went to bed. (In my opinion, it's time for you to go to bed.)
It's high time you stopped smoking. (In my opinion, the time has come for you to give up smoking.)
It's time we were leaving. (I've just noticed the time and we really should leave very soon.)

 

[5jj]

The so-called 'past' tense can distance not only in time but also in directness and reality.

In 'I wish I had a million pounds' and 'It's time I retired', the distancing is in reality, not in time. The time the speaker has in mind is present time.

 

[shootingstar]

Consider these:
It's time you went to bed. (In my opinion, it's time for you to go to bed.)
It's high time you stopped smoking. (In my opinion, the time has come for you to give up smoking.)
It's time we were leaving. (I've just noticed the time and we really should leave very soon.)

When I'm reading this you could get the impression the past simple could be a kind of subjunctive or backshift in this sentence, right?

 

[probus]

In my opinion it would be grammatically reasonable to consider it subjunctive rather than past tense. The problem with that theory, however, is that the subjunctive has completely died out in BrE, although it is still used to a limited extent in AmE. Wilder, of course, was American, and also was writing quite a while ago, when the subjunctive was less uncommon than it is today, so perhaps he intended "retired" as subjunctuve rather than past. But all that is just arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin: retired is natural; retire is not.

 

[jutfrank]

the subjunctive has completely died out in BrE

No, it hasn't! Far from it. This is just one still commonly used example of use.

 

[probus]

Sorry @jutfrank I don't understand. What is just one example in BrE?

 

[jutfrank]

Sorry @jutfrank I don't understand. What is just one example in BrE?

I meant the it's (high/about) time + past tense pattern we're discussing in this thread.

Am I wrong in thinking that the past tense here is (or at least was at some point) a past subjunctive?

 

[probus]

I wouldn't pretend to know the answer to that. I've always assumed or taken for granted that the past tense and the subjunctive mood just happen to have the same form for many verbs. But I'd be happy to be corrected if I've been wrong about that.

I do think, however, that when Dr Gibb used the word retire he was thinking not of the past so much as what ought to happen soon.

 

[emsr2d2]

For the benefit of other learners (who might not be familiar with the term), "retire" here means "go to bed", not "stop working".

 

[5jj]

I'd like to clear up a couple of points.

1.The Subjunctive.

It may be less common in BrE than in AmE, but the subjunctive is far from dead in Britain. Perhaps only a minority of native speakers would use the subjunctive in 'Tom would tell you if he were here', but it's a large minority.

It's a requirement of the British National curriculum that the subjunctive be (!) taught in Year 6:

Detail of content to be introduced (statutory requirement)
SENTENCE: [...] The difference between structures typical of informal speech and structures appropriate for formal speech and writing [for example, the use of question tags: He’s your friend, isn’t he?, or the use of subjunctive forms such as 'If I were' or 'Were they to come' in some very formal writing and speech].

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335190/English_Appendix_2_-_Vocabulary_grammar_and_punctuation.pdf

 

[5jj]

2. Tense vs Time.

The finite form 'retired', whether indicative or subjunctive is a past-tense form, regardless of whether the situation it denotes is past, present, general or future time.

The present-tense form is 'retire'.

The indicative and subjunctive forms of all verbs except BE are identical for all persons. BE has the form 'were' for all persons in the subjunctive.

BE has the form 'be' for all persons in the subjunctive.​

The indicative and subjunctive forms of all other verbs are identical for the first and second persons singular and all persons plural. The third person singular form has an '(-e)s' suffix; the subjunctive form does not.I'd like to clear up a couple of points.2. Tense vs Time.

The finite form 'retired', whether indicative or subjunctive is a past-tense form, regardless of whether the situation it denotes is past, present, general or future time.

The present-tense form is 'retire'.

The indicative and subjunctive forms of all verbs except BE are identical for all persons. BE has the form 'were' for all persons in the subjunctive.

BE has the form 'be' for all persons in the subjunctive. The indicative and subjunctive forms of all other verbs are identical for the first and second persons singular and all persons plural. The third person singular form has an '(-e)s' suffix; the subjunctive form does not.I'd like to clear up a couple of points.

 

[shootingstar]

I do think, however, that when Dr Gibb used the word retire he was thinking not of the past so much as what ought to happen soon.

I think you mean 'I do think, however, that when Dr. Gibb used the word retired he was thinking not of the past so much as what ought to happen soon'.

. . . he was thinking . . . what ought to happen soon - Curious indeed: retired - that is past simple - seems to almost have a kind of future meaning in this sentence.

 

[5jj]

3. 'It's time you retired.' - Subjunctive or indicative?

As the past-tense indicative and subjunctive forms are identical for all verbs except BE, one cannot say for certain which is the mood of 'retired'. However, Grammar geeks like me believe that it is not subjunctive. We agree with Quirk et al (1985.1013.n) and Huddleston and Pullum (2002.1004) that , although we would expect a counterfactual subjunctive in such situations, in the one verb that shows mood, '*It's time he were in bed' is not possible in BrE.

 

[Barque]

For the benefit of other learners (who might not be familiar with the term), "retire" here means "go to bed", not "stop working".

Do you mean Dr. Gibbs was telling George he needed to go to bed? I thought he was saying Mrs. Gibbs needed to retire from singing in the choir.