How do you explain this

0 The meanings are slightly different! 02br
02br
001. Means that we have to do more in less time. 02br
02br
004. Means that we do a lot only occassionally! (sort of) 0-

0 Hi guys, 02br
01blockquote

00Never before have we had so little time in which11i10____12i10. 12br
101:to do so much 12br
102:we will do so much 12br
103:it does so much 12br
104:we do so much 12blockquote

12br
02br
00I'd approach an explanation to my student

0 01blockquote

00 It's because the Present Perfect puts the sentence into a 'past with impact on the present' timeframe, which is at odds with the future tense in #2 and the habitual/present tense in #4. The lack of tense in #1's infinitive avoids this problem. 12blockquote

12br
02br
00Hi, Clive. 02br
02br
00When you say

0 I would approach it as an extension of expressions consisting of the noun "time" plus an infinitive. Such expressions mean, of course, "time required (to ...)" or "time necessary (to ...)". 02br
02br
00The lesson should probably include "space" as well, and maybe "patience", "knowledge", etc., in short, all the sorts of things which are "had" and which might be necessary 

0 Hi Taka, 02br
00What I mean is that when you say 'Never before have we had ...', I think you are saying some thing about both the past and the present, so it seems wrong to continue the sentence with a tense that refers only to the past, or only to the present, or even only to the future. So an infinitive is a way to avoid using a tense. 02br
02br
00I could be o

0 01blockquote

00 I could be off base here. 12blockquote

12br
00No. Your analysis is persuasive. It's actually the closest to the way I look at it. 02br
01blockquote

00 Where are other opinions when you need them? 12blockquote

12br
02br
00?? What do you mean? I do appreciate others' opin

0 I kind of disagree with CJ, because if it were a variant of 'time to do', it is impossible to explain why it would be unacceptable to say 'Never before have we had so little time 01b00 which to do in 02b00 . 02br
02br
00I think 'prep+relative pronoun+to do' might be essentially different from 'how to do' or 'where to go'. 0-

0 A non-teacher's view: 02br
02br
001. Never before have we had | so little time | in which to do so much. 02br
02br
00Here, 'never before' controls the whole sentence. You can equally say 'Never before have we had to do so much in so little time'. 02br
02br
00The sentence refers to all the previous occasions when time was required and

0 So, MrP, you don't think #4 is wrong? 0-

0 "Time in which to do something" is a literal style of "time to do something". This "which" is not an interrogative (like "what" in "what to do", a nominal phrase) but a relative to make it clear that the following infinitive is used as an adjectival phrase. Why don't people say "time which to do something in"? I guess it is because grammarians old days thought a relative clause should not end