Question about tenses

Question

Could I ask for some grammar expert's advice here, please?
I can identify the errors in the following sentences, but I also want to explain why they are errors and to name the correct tense that should be used.
Assistance much appreciated, thanks.
a) It's high time we will finish it.
b) I can't come to the movie tonight because I will go to the theatre with John.
c) I've been to Japan three years ago.
d) He asked me what can he do for me.
James

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]Could I ask for some grammar expert's advice here, please? I can identify the errors in the following sentences, but ... name the correct tense that should be used. Assistance much appreciated, thanks. a) It's high time we will finish it.[/nq]
This should use the subjunctive "that we finish it", rather than a future nuance. If you wish to leave the "that" out, no problem: "It's high time we finish it".
[nq:1]b) I can't come to the movie tonight because I will go to the theatre with John.[/nq]
This talks about plans. We use the Present Continuous to talk about plans: "~~ because I am going to the theatre with John."
[nq:1]c) I've been to Japan three years ago.[/nq]
The "three years ago" means you are talking about an action that is finished, and can never happen again (You can never "go to Japan three years ago" again), so use the Simple Past: "I went to Japan three years ago."
[nq:1]d) He asked me what can he do for me.[/nq]
You're using interrogative word order, in a clause that is not a question. Put the subject in front of the verb: "He asked me what he can do for me."

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I can identify the errors in the following sentences, but I also want to explain why they are errors and to name the correct tense that should be used. a) It's high time we will finish it.[/nq]
Verbs have several qualities, of which tense is only one. For "finite" verbs, the full collection is voice, mood, tense, aspect, number, and person; the infinite forms the participle, the infinitive, and the gerund have fewer limiting qualities.
The moods include the indicative, which we use for ordinary factual or interrogative statements; the imperative, which we use for commands, requests, warnings, and the like; and the subjunctive, which we use for representing something as not actually belonging to the domain of fact or reality, but as merely existent in the mind of the speaker as a desire, wish, volition, plan, conception, or thought. The sentence above, fitting that definition, thus requires the subjunctive mood.

Tenses in the subjunctive mood do not necessarily have the same significance as in the more familiar indicative mood, especially the past; but here we have a straightforward present subjunctive (as shown by "it is time"). The inflection of the present-tense subjunctive is very simple and perfectly regular. It is, in all persons, identical to the bare infinitive form; for "finish", for example, it would be "I/you/he/she/it/we/they finish". So the correct form for that sentence is:
. It's high time we finish it.
[nq:1]b) I can't come to the movie tonight because I will go to the theatre with John.[/nq]
This sentence illustrates the verb quality called "aspect". The two aspects are "terminate", which represents the act as a finished whole, and "progressive", which represents the act as going on, in progress. We use the ordinary tense whichever is appropriate for the terminate aspect, but a participial form for the progressive; because of that, the terminate present is used to convey general, habitual, or general truths: I get up early; dogs bark; water runs downhill.

Examples using past tenses:
. Last Saturday I worked in the garden.
. Last Saturday I was working in the garden when Bill dropped by.

The future progressive form in the first person is "I shall (now often "will") be Xing", where Xing is the present participle of the verb in question. Because the obstacle to your attendance at the movie is something that will be going on at the same time a progressive aspect your sentence wants to read:
. I can't come to the movie tonight because I shall/will be going to the theatre with John.
(The shall/will question is a large, complicated one, with the modern tendency being toward using "will" for futurity in all persons, though the matter is far from a settled one.)
[nq:1]c) I've been to Japan three years ago.[/nq]
The sentence as cast is in the present perfect tense ("have been"), but that is inappropriate because that tense refers to time now past but in some way connected with the present; when the action is not so connected, we use the simple past tense (even if the action has just barely concluded).
One could use the present perfect tense for a statement such as "I've been to Japan three times," because nothing suggests that your travelling to Japan is now definitely concluded, with no further trips to come. But the "three years ago" places the act completely in the past, with no clear connection to present time. So, the wanted form is the simple past:
. I was (or "went") to Japan three years ago.
[nq:1]d) He asked me what can he do for me.[/nq]
This is another call for the subjunctive mood, as whatever task he might perform is not yet a factual thing but is "merely existent in the mind of the speaker as a desire, wish, volition, plan, conception, or thought."
Here we encounter the phenomenon alluded to above, the fact that in the subjunctive the past tense most often points to present or future time. There is in English a small collection of so-called "past-present verbs" that are each the remains of a shattered once-full verb form; they include can, dare, may, shall, will, must, ought, and the now-archaic wot. What these forms share is the quality of presenting not facts but conceptions, of representing things as possible, necessary, desireable, or befitting. They thus naturally align themselves with the subjunctive mood, and are used in the modern subjunctive as verbal auxiliaries.
(The modern subjunctive uses these auxiliaries, whereas the old-style subjunctive uses inflectional forms, as mentioned at sentence (a) above.)
The modal subjunctive auxiliary wanted here is "can" the expression of possible ability and under the tense-use rules of the subjunctive, we want the past form of it, "could".
Also, "what" is an interrogative pronoun; when it is followed by a word order inverted from the declarative subject-verb order to verb-subject, it normally makes a question: "What can I do for you?" But when we are reporting a question and not directly and formally quoting someone, we use the declarative word order because we are reporting the statement, not ourselves asking the question. Thus, the wanted form is:
. He asked me what he could do for me.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]b) I can't come to the movie tonight because I will go to the theatre with John.[/nq]
[nq:1]This sentence illustrates the verb quality called "aspect". The two aspects are "terminate", which represents the act as a finished ... modern tendency being toward using "will" for futurity in all persons, though the matter is far from a settled one.)[/nq]
I disagree. The only reason for using a past or future progressive form is to show an interaction with another event or action.

Your own example of past progressive shows this:
"Last Saturday, I was working in the garden when Bill dropped by."

In this case, the action of Bill's "dropping by" interrupted the continuous action of "working in the garden".
Without that interaction (which, granted, does not need to be contained within the same sentence), there is no point in showing that an action was continuous, so the vast majority of people would use the simple past:

"Last Saturday, I worked in the garden" is normal. "Last Saturday, I was working in the garden" is incomplete.

The whole plans v. intentions thing is a fuzzy area, because: a: The difference between a plan and an intention can be a fuzzy difference, and:
b: In the US, the "intended action" usage ("going to"/"gonna") is often used indiscriminately for both, and the global proliferation of US TV shows is spreading that usage (whether that is "good" or "bad", I don't care. It just is).
To be absolutely correct, by today's standards (which still have not fully accepted "going to" for planned activities), the present continuous is required, as that indicates that a plan has been made.
[nq:2]d) He asked me what can he do for me.[/nq]
[nq:1]This is another call for the subjunctive mood, as whatever task he might perform is not yet a factual thing ... not ourselves asking the question. Thus, the wanted form is: . He asked me what he could do for me.[/nq]
That is not subjunctive; it's not even formulaic. You are confusing yourself with "he asked me if there were anything he could do for me", which may mean the same thing, but does not say it in the same way, or follow the same grammatical rules.
"What he can/could do for me" ("can" and "could" are interchangeable, here) is the indirect object of the verb "asked", pure and simple.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]So the correct form for that sentence is: . It's high time we finish it.[/nq]
I would say, 'It's high time we finished it.'

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I can identify the errors in the following sentences, but ... be used. a) It's high time we will finish it.[/nq]
[nq:1]Verbs have several qualities, of which tense is only one. For "finite" verbs, the full collection is voice, mood, tense, ... it would be "I/you/he/she/it/we/they finish". So the correct form for that sentence is: . It's high time we finish it.[/nq]
I would say (BrE) that this was incorrect: it should be "It's high time we finished it".
[nq:2]b) I can't come to the movie tonight because I will go to the theatre with John.[/nq]
[nq:1]This sentence illustrates the verb quality called "aspect". The two aspects are "terminate", which represents the act as a finished ... modern tendency being toward using "will" for futurity in all persons, though the matter is far from a settled one.)[/nq]
Except in formal writing I would go with "I am going".
[nq:2]d) He asked me what can he do for me.[/nq]
[nq:1]This is another call for the subjunctive mood, as whatever task he might perform is not yet a factual thing ... not ourselves asking the question. Thus, the wanted form is: . He asked me what he could do for me.[/nq]
I agree - "can" is incorrect to my ear.
Chris R

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]So the correct form for that sentence is: . It's high time we finish it.[/nq]
[nq:1]I would say, 'It's high time we finished it.'[/nq]
You wouldn't be wrong in doing so.
"~~ that we finish it."
"~~ that we finished it."
"~~ that we had finished it" (at a stretch).
"~~ that it be finished."
"~~ that it was finished."
"~~ that it were finished."
"~~ that it had been finished" (at a /really long/ stretch).

All are perfectly normal subjunctives, and all fit fine, in the sentence in question. You read and hear all those constructions all the time.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]. He asked me what he could do for me.[/nq]
[nq:1]I agree - "can" is incorrect to my ear.[/nq]
I'm afraid that the difference between "was able to then" ("could") and "is still able to now" ("can") has been pretty much lost in the mists of time. Walker will insist on making the distinction, because his grammar is based on hugely out-of-date texts; but precious few other people worry about it, and swap "can" and "could" around to no ill effect (I wouldn't be surprised if you do it yourself, without noticing).

What is absolutely certain is that the sentence is not subjunctive, so Walker is once again earning his title "WP" (for studying and transcribing the "Wrong Page" of his archaic style manual).

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]So the correct form for that sentence is: . It's high time we finish it.[/nq]
[nq:1]I would say, 'It's high time we finished it.'[/nq]
That is certainly an acceptable casting, albeit with a sense a slight shade different from the original. The past subjunctive suggests more doubt, uncertainty, while the present subjunctive implies more hope, definiteness. The past form has thus come to suggest modesty, diffidence, politeness, caution: "The matter might, I think, be left to his judgement" or "You might stop at the grocery on the way home and get some milk." My feeling is that the alternative casting is just such a polite form, the sort of thing one would normally say in, for example, a committee meeting, whereas the original is more forceful, perhaps the sort of thing that wants an exclamation point at the end, or that is said in a raised voice or in whatever tone a peeved superior uses to a subordinate.
Note that I didn't just say "correct form", I said "correct form for that sentence", hoping to convey thereby that I was seeking a recasting as close as to the original form ("It's high time we will finish it") as correctness could tolerate.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Thus, the wanted form is: . He asked me what he could do for me.[/nq]
[nq:1]I agree - "can" is incorrect to my ear.[/nq]
Could that be so? Yes, it could. The original has its time sense bollixed: the indirectly quoted person in the past was not asking what he can do in our present, which is his future, but in his present, which is our past. As a direct quotation, the sentence would read "He asked me 'What can I do for you?'" in which the speaker accurately reports what that "he" said at that past moment, which was then his (and the speaker's) present.
But when that is rendered in indirect form, the tenses must show the time relation properly: one cannot use "can" for an act in one's past, but must use "could": "I wondered what he could do for me at that moment." No one (save perhaps one person) would dream of writing that "I wondered what he can do for me at that moment."

Usenet · Answer

(Sorry, meant to pick this up in a prior posting.)
[nq:2]This sentence illustrates the verb quality called "aspect". The two ... persons, though the matter is far from a settled one.)[/nq]
[nq:1]Except in formal writing I would go with "I am going".[/nq]
"I am going" can certainly express futurity, provided the context supplies the needed sense (which "tonight" does here). But that is simple futurity, and so has terminate force. The essence of the conflict the speaker is addressing is that he or she will be at the theater with John during the time the movie is running. Without an explicitly progressive aspect, the conflict is not being made as clear as it should: suppose the play runs from 6 to 7 p.m. and the movie from
8 till 10 p.m.? For the speaker to state that he or she is going tothe play does not in itself* set forth that the conflict is owing to impossibility; it could also be that merely spending time in John's company puts the speaker off wanting to also spend time the same evening with whomever is being addressed. The expressly progressive form "I shall/will be going" makes correspondingly express that the conflict is one of *simultaneous and thus mutually exclusive alternatives.
Granted, we can almost surely deduce the correct situation from "I can't come to the movie tonight because I am going to the theatre with John"; but the careful writer will say exactly what he means, and not cast his responsibility for exactness onto his readers' shoulders.

Question about tenses

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions