Thread: In time vs. on time

Hi!
can anyboudy explain the difference between "in time" and "on time".
As far as I know, "on time" means that something happens just accordingto the timetable. And "in time" means just not to be late.
E.g. The bus cane on time. We were in time for the bus.

Am I right?
Thanx!

You can also say "we were on time for the bus"

Originally Posted by Nuta

Hi!
can anyboudy explain the difference between "in time" and "on time".
As far as I know, "on time" means that something happens just accordingto the timetable. And "in time" means just not to be late.
E.g. The bus cane on time. We were in time for the bus.

Am I right?
Thanx!

You're spot on.

DDT, your "we were on time for the bus" example is used colloquially, definitely. But I think if you have "for..." afterward, continuing the sentence on, you'd use in time.
So, "We were on time"
But, "we were in time for the bus's departure"
Nuta, you'll hear both ways all the time, but in my opinion you're exactly right with your understanding.

My examples;
Be on time! (if you're meeting a set schedule)
"Be in time for the party" (if there's [/u]no specific[/u] time".

Saing 'ON time' means there was a sentence said BEFOREHAND, therefore it is already known what you're meeting for and when.
But with 'IN time', you have to say within the same sentence what it is that you need to be in time for. I think they're the same meaning, just in different positions in the conversation.
'On time' is like a direct object/subject (whatever grammatical term is used).

So with this example, "Be in time for the party", the time that you intend on arriving hasn't been agreed upon nor decided. You haven't already specified whether you'll come at 7 o'clock or 8 o'clock. Which is why 'in time' would be used.
'In time' may simply be short for 'in GOOD time'. Don't come at a BAD time.

Thanx a lot for the explanations! )

Sorry for importunity ) but is there any difference in the usage of "leftover" and "leftovers"?

I found different definitions to these words.

Leftover - (before noun) - remaining afer you've finished using the amount you wnt or need.

Leftovers - food, which remains after you've finished eating.

Can you give some exaples from "life" to make it more clear?

And I saw, that "leftovers" was used to describe the clothers, which you wear after you elder sisters or brothers. Is this variant can be used in the colloquial speech?

Thanx.)

By putting an 's' on the end, you simply turn it into a noun. And 'left over' (two seperate words) isn't a noun. If you say 'leftover' as one word, it is an adjective (?term). I mean that 'leftover' qualifies a noun, but isn't itself a noun. Only with the 's' on the end is it a noun.

eg.

1.This food is left over from last night.

2.These are last night's leftovers.

3.This is last night's leftover pie.

4.This is my leftover caserole.

So, I think it's true what you said about 'leftover' without the 's' needing a noun after it. It desribes the noun. But 'left' and 'over' as two seperate words changes the grammar.
So "This is my leftover caserole" becomes " This is my caserole which is left over from last night"

Thanx! Now it's absolutely clear to me!

I think it's just the same, that now we think that pop-corn" is a noun, it's a food, but if we think a little we see, that there are 2 different words - to pop (a verb) and corn (a noun).

But now we've just got used to useing it as a noun.....

As I understood, the same is with the word "leftovers".

Originally Posted by Nuta

And I saw, that "leftovers" was used to describe the clothers, which you wear after you elder sisters or brothers. Is this variant can be used in the colloquial speech?

Thanx.)

I've never heard of clothes from elder brothers and sisters being called "leftovers" - I've always heard them called "hand-me-downs". The same kind of grammatical process is going on here - they are "handed down" (i.e. passed on) from one sibling to the next, but "hand-me-downs" is a noun in its own right.

Originally Posted by Nuta

Hi!
can anyboudy explain the difference between "in time" and "on time".
As far as I know, "on time" means that something happens just accordingto the timetable. And "in time" means just not to be late.
E.g. The bus cane on time. We were in time for the bus.

Am I right?
Thanx!

You are exactly right.

The bus came on time = The bus came according to the schedule.
The bus came in time = The bus came so that we were not late getting to our destination. No specific time.

We were on time for the bus = We were at the bus stop at the time the bus was supposed to depart.
We were in time for the bus = We were at the bus stop before the bus departed. No specific time.

Be on time for the party = Be at the location of the party at the time it is supposed to start.
Be in time for the party = Don't be late for the party. No specific time.

It is interesting that I never thought about this until now. I had to think about it for a few minutes. I appologize for being redundant.

Originally Posted by kwatts59

Originally Posted by Nuta

Hi!
can anyboudy explain the difference between "in time" and "on time".
As far as I know, "on time" means that something happens just accordingto the timetable. And "in time" means just not to be late.
E.g. The bus cane on time. We were in time for the bus.

Am I right?
Thanx!

You are exactly right.

The bus came on time = The bus came according to the schedule.
The bus came in time = The bus came so that we were not late getting to our destination. No specific time.

We were on time for the bus = We were at the bus stop at the time the bus was supposed to depart.
We were in time for the bus = We were at the bus stop before the bus departed. No specific time.

Be on time for the party = Be at the location of the party at the time it is supposed to start.
Be in time for the party = Don't be late for the party. No specific time.

It is interesting that I never thought about this until now. I had to think about it for a few minutes. I appologize for being redundant.

I would *never* say "Be in time for the party". But your descriptions for the other two are perfect.

One more: A common phrase is "just in time". Nobody says "just on time" as a common phrase, although I suppose you could construct a sentence where it makes sense:

"Were you early to school?" "No, I was just on time." In this case, it would mean I was *just* "on time".

Whereas, "just in time" means you barely made it.

Yeah! I gat it!
All the examples are perfect and now everything is clear. I understand in detail. I think that these details of the language are very interesting!

There are a lot of english words, I mean pair of words, with which I'm often confused. For example - ago and before. I don't understand understand all the difference.
deparment vs section

May be you can explain the difference?

Thanx.

Usually "department" is used when speaking of an office of some kind.

The Department Of Main Roads.
The Motor Vehicle Department.
Department of Agriculture

But you would use "section" when talking about areas.

That section of the road is under construction.
I didn't read that section of the newspaper.
In that section of the city there is no power.


Ago and Before.

I took my glasses off before he punched me in the face.

Two years ago he punched me in the face.

I should have taken Karate lessons before I was punched in the face.

Not long ago, I was punched in the face.

Here's where it gets tricky.
Not long before I was punched in the face, I began Karate lessons.

You can say "20 years ago." or "20 years before..."
You are expected to finish telling what happened if you use "before" .
"20 years ago." is a statement and can stand alone.

Originally Posted by DDT

Not long before I was punched in the face, I began Karate lessons.

You can also say
Not long ago, before I was punched in the face, I began Karate lessons.

The meaning may be slightly different though. I cannot explain the difference.

Just adding to DDT's point. When you use 'ago', you can imagine a pause in the sentence. Whereas 'before' keeps the sentence flowing.

An exception to look out for- when 'before' is the first word in a sentence and is followed by a comma.

1. Before, I went to the shops.
2. Before I went to the shops.

In sentence 2 there needed to be a previous sentence for it to make sense. So still, the 'before' in sentence 2 has continuity, even though that continuation was from a previous sentence. But sentence 1 can stand as a lone comment, a comment by itself with no other sentences around it.

(confusing ?)
Making things worse, I used 'a lone'. Poor Nuta. Now you're going to wonder what the difference between 'a lone' and 'alone' is.
Just incase---> a lone comment = a solitary comment /a stand-alone comment lol But don't worry, it's not that common to use 'a lone'.

Originally Posted by brett

1. Before, I went to the shops.
2. Before I went to the shops.

Sentence 1 says that "In the past, I frequented the shops. Now I do not."

Sentence 2 does not make sense to me. It sounds like a fragment and needs to be connected with another sentence.
For example:
Before I went to the shops, I had lunch with my girl.
or
I had lunch with my girl, before I went to the shops.


Anyways, back to my previous post

Not long before I was punched in the face, I began Karate lessons.
This sentence says that I started Karate lessons just prior to the time I got punched in the face. The punch in the face could have happened 10 years ago.
vs
Not long ago, before I was punched in the face, I began Karate lessons.
This sentence implies that I was RECENTLY punched in the face.

"Before I went to the shops" would make sense as an answer to a question. eg. "When did you do your chores, son?"
So, as I did say (and as you confirmed), on it's own it makes no sense. It requires another sentence to qualify it. I realize now that it may indeed have to be a question that does this qualifying. I suppose an answer to a question may qualify as a fragmented sentence, seeing as that an answer only makes sense if a question was asked in the first place. Unless you repeat the question part.

Q: When did you do your chores?

A: I did my chores before I went to the shops.

But it still is proper English to simply respond- "Before I went to the shops."
Repeating part of the question can be deemed redundant unless it's for the purpose of emphatic expression.

Originally Posted by brett

on it's own

"it's" should be "its"

Originally Posted by kwatts59

I had lunch with my girl, before I went to the shops.

This is incorrect. The comma must be omitted.

Originally Posted by brett

(confusing ?)
Making things worse, I used 'a lone'. Poor Nuta. Now you're going to wonder what the difference between 'a lone' and 'alone' is.
Just incase---> a lone comment = a solitary comment /a stand-alone comment lol But don't worry, it's not that common to use 'a lone'.

Thanx! I became clear to me now! But I knew the difference between "a lone" and "alone". I saw this expression in an article, it was written there....... "a lone spy......"

In reported speech......... as I know, we shouls say "before" instead of "ago".

She said: "I ssaw him 2 days ago."
She said, that she had seen him 2 days before. Am I right?

May be there are some cases, where we can use "ago" in the reported speech?

This sentence sounds a little strange to me.

Originally Posted by Nuta

She said, that she had seen him 2 days before.

I would say
"She said that she had seen him 2 days ago."
or
"She said that she had seen him 2 days before he left."