1

The legal system cannot protect the children; it is time for change.

versus

I have been eating the same food for the last two years; it is time for a change.

I have seen both usages. To my ears, neither sounds ungrammatical. What is the difference? (My gut feeling is that time for a change implies any change, while the agent who expressed the former has some specific change in mind.)

1
  • 1
    There's not really any difference. But It's time for a change is the idiomatically established form (see this earlier question). You'll normally only hear the article-less form as a "soundbite / campaign slogan" from politicians (in particular, I think Obama was keen on it). Dec 26, 2020 at 18:47

2 Answers 2

2

Both are grammatical, and in the examples the meaning is very similar. "Time for change" implies a general or broad change, and perhaps implies that change is needed but the speaker is not saying what change. "Time for a change" more often is used with a specific proposal, but can also be used for the general case. Often there will be little difference of meaning between the forms.

0

The only difference is 'a'.

We need to analyze only 'a'

The article 'a' has many usages including : 'a' is used like any to refer in a general way to people or things" https://dict.naver.com/enendict/#/entry/enen/d7290167a32945e39e0313fb39ecc6ac" A person who is sick can't work well. [=people can't work well if they are sick]

Time for change means just 'change' and 'Time for a change' means any/some change.

To my ears (as a non-native English speaker), '"Time for 'a' change" sounds like 'this time is a right time for any change or we need any/some change now'

And without 'a' it might also mean an overblown expression (not specific but just 'change' like "Gentlemen, this is the time for change."

I believe 'change' is broader than 'a change'.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .