Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

I think IT'S TIME WE ALL LEFT

2 views
Skip to first unread message

nntp.aioe.org

unread,
Apr 28, 2009, 5:05:41 AM4/28/09
to
Setting: Bambi, the animated picture

Everybody is here to witness the newly born young Prince: Bambi.

After a little while, Bambi gets sleepy, as babies do.

So friend Owl, out of his wisdom, says to everybody:

I think IT'S TIME WE ALL LEFT.


Question: why is it "left" and not "leave"?

I would have said "it's time we all leave"...


Bye

--

>Giovanni

Lorents

unread,
Apr 28, 2009, 8:15:00 AM4/28/09
to
nntp.aioe.org wrote:
>
> I think IT'S TIME WE ALL LEFT.
>
>
> Question: why is it "left" and not "leave"?
>

Perche' in questa forma ci vuole il congiuntivo
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/radio/specials/1535_questionanswer/page42.shtml


cingar.s...@libero.it

unread,
Apr 28, 2009, 12:10:33 PM4/28/09
to
Lorents ha scritto:

> nntp.aioe.org wrote:
>
> > I think IT'S TIME WE ALL LEFT.
>
> > Question: why is it "left" and not "leave"?
>
> Perche' in questa forma ci vuole il congiuntivo

Veramente, "we leave" e "we left" sono entrambi sia indicativo sia
congiuntivo... Solo che il primo è presente e il secondo è passato.

--
Cingar


P.S. Al passato, l'indicativo e il congiuntivo sono sempre identici.

Al presente, cambia solo la 3ª persona singolare, che all'indicativo
vuole la "-s" ("she leaves") mentre al congiuntivo non la vuole ("she
leave").

Fa eccezione il verbo "to be", nel quale indicativo e congiuntivo
hanno anche altre differenze:

IND. PRES.: IND. PASS.:
I am I be
he/she/it is he/she/it be
we are we be
you are you be
they are they be

CONG. PRES.: CONG. PASS.:
I was I were
he/she/it was he/she/it were
we were we were
you were you were
they were they were

cingar.s...@libero.it

unread,
Apr 28, 2009, 12:12:53 PM4/28/09
to
cingar.scampas...@libero.it wrote:
> [...]
> IND. PRES.:     IND. PASS.:
> [...]
> CONG. PRES.:    CONG. PASS.:
> [...]

Pardon, invertite le labels...

IND. PRES.: CONG. PRES.:
IND. PASS.: CONG. PASS.:

--
Cingar

Janis

unread,
Apr 28, 2009, 2:47:45 PM4/28/09
to
"nntp.aioe.org" <erd...@gmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:gt6gtm$312$1...@aioe.org...

> I think IT'S TIME WE ALL LEFT.
>
>
> Question: why is it "left" and not "leave"?
>
> I would have said "it's time we all leave"...

Perch� con l'espressione "it's time" o metti l'infinito o il passato - che
qui ha funzione di congiuntivo. E' come quando dici "I wish I had xxx".
E' una regola da imparare a memoria.

ciao, Janis - It's time I got married j/k :P


nntp.aioe.org

unread,
Apr 28, 2009, 4:31:18 PM4/28/09
to
Lorents ha scritto:

"The past form in these examples is, I think, the subjunctive form of
the verb. The subjunctive is often used when we talk about unreal or
imagined situations."

the same would be in Italian too, then. but we don't say "ￜ ora che
andassimo". we say "ￜ ora che andiamo", which is still can be seen as
subjunctive, if you will. it comes from the "consecutio", id's say.


maybe janis (janis? frankie's janis?) is right, and you just have to
know it by heart. but I then have to develop a way I can memorize this
rule...

--

>Giovanni

Giovanni "Darke"

unread,
Dec 21, 2009, 4:03:42 AM12/21/09
to
Lorents wrote:

dato che -come dice il tuo link-, si puￜ usare anche in forma
continuata, ti pongo la seguente questione.

mi SEMBRA che, perￜ, nonstante si possa interpretare come subjunctive,
alla terza persona, per il verbo essere, vada il was e non il were.

esempio:

IT'S TIME SHE WAS GOING

e non

IT'S TIME SHE WERE GOING


chiedo lumi a chi lo sa.


in definitiva, mi pare di aver capito, il consiglio generale ￜ
semplicemente di imparare a memoria una regola, ed impararla nella sua
forma piￜ semplice (senza -ing)...IT'S TIME WE WENT.


ciao

--

>Giovanni

0 new messages