Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: It's time we went to the station

Where does this expression come from?
I heard it before, but I'm not aware of any rule that could help me to 
understand why I should use 'went' instead of 'go'.
Kiuhnm

 understand why I should use 'went' instead of 'go'.
Solitamente è usata per lamentarsi o per far osservazioni di carattere 
critico:
- It's time the children were in bed. It's long time after their bedtime.
- The windows are very dirty. I think it's time we cleaned them.
O per sottolineare la critica si può dire:
- Jack is a great talker. But It's ABOUT TIME he did something insted of 
just talking.
- You're very selfish. It's HIGH TIME you realised that you are not the most 
important person in the world.
Ciao

Anche in italiano si usa il passato, ma al congiuntivo che tuttavia non
esiste in inglese:
e' tempo che andassimo alla stazione
e' tempo che ci dessimo una mossa
E' chiaro che c'e' la sfumatura del periodo della possibilita'/irrealta'.
O mi sbaglio?
antonio
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 just talking.
Come lo si rende in italiano?
"Ma sarebbe (anche) ora che facesse qualcosa invece di (limitarsi a) 
parlare."?
Se così fosse, la differenza starebbe solo nell'uso del presente anziché 
del condizionale.
Kiuhnm

 e' tempo che ci dessimo una mossa
"è ora che andiamo alla stazione"
"sarebbe ora che andassimo alla stazione"
Kiuhnm


No, no! Criminale! :)
E' ora di andare alla stazione
E' ora di darsi una mossa 

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:44c26d0e$0$45304$4faf...@reader3.news.tin.it...


Spiegati meglio, non ho capito...

 Spiegati meglio, non ho capito...
Non è una critica. Stavo dicendo che se così è (cioè se ho tradotto bene 
in italiano) allora devo ricordarmi solo che l'italiano e l'inglese 
differiscono per il tempo nella proposizione principale.
Kiuhnm

 No, no! Criminale! :)
Be', non ne sono tanto sicuro...
Ammetto subito che "tempo" e' sbagliato, bisogna dire "ora", comunque:
"Sarebbe ora che andassimo alla stazione" e' impeccabile.
"E' ora che andassimo alla stazione" non mi sembra poi tanto criminale,
anche se non e'nemmeno il massimo della correttezza.
Tuttavia, puo' darsi che mi sbagli...


 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:44c241ef$0$45295$4faf...@reader3.news.tin.it...



In short , 'went' is here the subjunctive - as in the Italian and as
suggested by antonio.
No doubt true - but those interested might note that for the English it's
now effectively become a past indicative . The only case where you can
distinguish the past indicative and the past subjunctive are in the first
and third persons of 'to be' - and what you'll hear nowadays is 'It's high
time Prescott was sacked' , and 'It's time I was going' etc. , not 'It's
high time Prescott were sacked' etc.
Mike

 Kiuhnm
No, no! Lo so che non era una critica! Davvero non avevo capito!
Sě, differiscono nel tempo ma ricorda che puoi anche tranquillamente dire:
- It's time TO GO home.
oppure
- It's late, It's time we WENT home.
dipende dal senso che vuoi dare alla frase!
Ciao

 "E' ora che andassimo alla stazione" non mi sembra poi tanto criminale,
Lo č, lo č!
Non diffondere false notizie, qualche English speaker potrebbe prenderti 
sul serio :-)
Tabhall

 dipende dal senso che vuoi dare alla frase!
Purtroppo mi è venuto da scrivere "It's late, it's time we go home" :(
Mi sembra così naturale...
Kiuhnm

 just talking.
come posso volgere questa frase al passato?
va bene se dico: 
A: last night I killed a lot of mosquitos
B: It was about time you did it! (meaning: it was long overdue)
thanks

 Mi sembra così naturale...
anch'io casco in questo tranello molto spesso...per questo dico sempre:
It's late, it's time *for us* to go home!

 Mi sembra così naturale...
You can say:
It's late, it's time to go home. (The most common phrasing)
It's late, it's time we went home. (Perfectly acceptable usage)
It's late, it's time we go home. (Less common in daily usage, but 
acceptable)
The last sentence, like the first, communicates a more urgent message to 
leave. 


'Scuse me, shouldn't it be 'like in Italian'?
thanx 


Try this: "It's high time we went":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/radio/specials/1535_questionanswer/page35.shtml

 wrote in message 
news:2h8xg.51186$zy5.1...@twister1.libero.it...

'Fraid not . 'as [it is] in the Italian' ; 'as' here is a conjunction ; 
'like' is a preposition , meaning 'similar to' + pronoun/noun/noun 
phrase/noun clause : 'the English usage is like the Italian [usage] '.
It's true that , informally , 'like' is sometimes used as a conjunction , 
and such uses are becoming more common ,  though often they still sound 
wrong to many educated ears (in the UK , anyway) .
Mike 


I would say that the last phrase, which is not very common, is
unacceptable.
An equally unacceptable sentence along the same lines, but one which
grates even more on the ears, would be "It's time we are in bed"
instead of "It's time we were in bed".
Joe from Massachusetts

 instead of "It's time we were in bed".
I would correct someone for saying "It's time we are in bed" but I wouldn't 
correct anyone for saying "It's time we go to bed." 

 phrase/noun clause : 'the English usage is like the Italian [usage] '.
Well, what can I say but the use of 'come' in English is a mishmash of 
adverbs, conjunctions and prepositions? It seems me peculiar, anyway, the 
use of the article before an adjective of nationality which should convey 
the idea of people and not of  language (unless you are saying that it is 
understood from the context or informal) ...as if you said "the yours"
Sorry for the imprudence: maybe it is 'like' talking to a brick wall!
dd



I have noticed that there is a tendency among many modern
"grammarians" to avoid the use of the word "subjunctive" altogether,
and to replace it with any number of conjured-up appellations. The
phrase in question has been described as an example of an "unreal
past".
Joe from Massachusetts

 'Fraid not . 'as [it is] in the Italian' ; 'as' here is a conjunction ; 
"as [it is] in Italian".
"as [it is] in the Italian language".
As you can see, "as" is used correctly in both cases.
Kiuhnm

 past".
But that's a nonsense. How can it be an "unreal past"? The action is 
both possible and, accordingly, in the future!
"E' proprio ora che tu vada"
In Latin, this would be a "congiuntivo esortativo" in disguise.
In Italian, we use subjunctive because the action isn't certain. But 
it's not impossibile as an "unreal past" would suggest:
"Se solo fossimo arrivati in tempo alla stazione!"
Kiuhnm

 wrote in message
news:44c5e14e$0$30252$4faf...@reader1.news.tin.it...

« UNREAL PAST
The past tense is sometimes used in English to refer to an 'unreal'
situation. So, although the tense is the past, we are usually talking
about the present, e.g. in a Type 2 conditional sentence:...»
«Similarly, when we want to say that now is a suitable moment to do
something, either for ourselves or for someone else, we use it's time
+ past tense:
It's (high) time I went.
It's time you paid that bill.
Don't you think it's time you had a haircut?»
http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/IF10.cfm
Joe from Massachusetts

 + past tense:
Yes, but it's nonsense to call it UNREAL when it introduces a POSSIBLE 
situation.
Kiuhnm

 wrote in message
news:44c620ae$0$15862$4faf...@reader2.news.tin.it...

I don't call it unreal, although some "grammarians" do.
It must have been much easier for Italians to learn their grammar when
Latin was taught in all the schools. Imagine how difficult it is for
English speakers, whose link to Latin and Greek has been eroding for a
thousand years.
Joe from Massachusetts