be on one's way, be returning/heading back/coming

[Marika33]

I apologize if this seems to anyone like it's just the same question asked again, but I really want to clarify this for myself.

In a short excerpt from a movie called "Alien: Covenant", some members of the crew said different versions of the same idea, "We're heading back", "We're returning", "We are on our way back", "They're coming". Here are the screenshots:




My question is, given these four example sentences said by native English speakers about the very same action, can you ask these (below with numbers) to talk about the amount of time one spent on those actions?

For instance, at 5:20 some people started returning/heading back/being on their way/coming to the destination (let's call it "point Y").
At 5:40 they finally "finished" returning/heading back/being on their way/coming to point Y.
+
That means, at 5:25 (if you had called them, they would've said that) they were returning/heading back/on their way back/coming to Y.
So they were at 5:26, at 5:27, at 5:28 and so on until 5:40 when they finally arrived.
=

1. They were returning (to Y) for 20 minutes. (?)
2. They were heading back (to Y) for 20 minutes. (?)
3. They were coming (to Y) for 20 minutes. (?)
4. They were on their way (back to Y) for 20 minutes. (?)
   +
5. It took them 20 minutes to get to Y. (I've heard this is fine)
6. It took them 20 minutes to return to Y. (?)
7. It took them 20 minutes to head back to Y. (?)
8. It took them 20 minutes to come to Y. (?)
   +
9. They spent 20 minutes getting to Y. (?)
10. They spent 20 minutes returning to Y. (?)
11. They spent 20 minutes heading back to Y. (?)
12. They spent 20 minutes coming to Y. (?)

 

[jutfrank]

1. It took them 20 minutes to get to Y. (I've heard this is fine)
2. It took them 20 minutes to return to Y. (?)
3. It took them 20 minutes to head back to Y. (?)
4. It took them 20 minutes to come to Y. (?)
   +
5. They spent 20 minutes getting to Y. (?)
6. They spent 20 minutes returning to Y. (?)
7. They spent 20 minutes heading back to Y. (?)
8. They spent 20 minutes coming to Y. (?)

These are all very good. The sentences all focus centrally on the duration. That is to say that they are obviously and primarily about how long the actions lasted.

1. They were returning (to Y) for 20 minutes. (?)
2. They were heading back (to Y) for 20 minutes. (?)
3. They were coming (to Y) for 20 minutes. (?)
4. They were on their way (back to Y) for 20 minutes. (?)

There's nothing grammatically wrong with these but they don't appear to have the same central focus on the duration.

 

[Marika33]

There's nothing grammatically wrong with these but they don't appear to have the same central focus on the duration.

Are they unnatural? Even 4, "They were on their way (back to Y) for 20 minutes"?

 

[jutfrank]

Are they unnatural?

I don't think that's a useful question. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'unnatural'.

 

[Marika33]

I don't think that's a useful question. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'unnatural'.

Earlier you said, "be on one's way to [a place] for [an amount of time]" is a good choice to talk about the time you spent on the action of travelling - the duration. Now, you're saying,

There's nothing grammatically wrong with these but they don't appear to have the same central focus on the duration.

By "unnatural" I mean something that might be misinterpreted by the listener or might sound like you are illiterate.

 

[jutfrank]

Earlier you said, "be on one's way to [a place] for [an amount of time]" is a good choice to talk about the time you spent on the action of travelling - the duration.

Did I? Can you show me?

 

[Marika33]

Did I? Can you show me?

Yeah, sure.

What would you say instead of "It was going for two years"? (at 0:47)

It's been on its way for two years is one possibility.

OK, imagine if the man in the video is talking about a past action, for example something that happened many years ago. How then would you say this?

You'd use a past tense in that case, i.e., was instead of has been.

 

[Piscean]

Earlier you said, "be on one's way to [a place] for [an amount of time]" is a good choice to talk about the time you spent on the action of travelling - the duration.

I can't see that in the words you quoted in post #7

 

[Marika33]

I can't see that in the words you quoted in post #7

I wouldn't be picky about the words, but rather pay attention to the idea.

What would you say, Piscean, instead of "It was going for two years" (from the video)? Or do you consider it to be natural already?

 

[Piscean]

I wouldn't be picky about the words, but rather pay attention to the idea.

I would. You claim that jutfrank said something it seems he didn't. If you change the words, you change the message.

 

[jutfrank]

Am I supposed to have contradicted myself somewhere? What's the question exactly?

They were on their way back for twenty minutes.

Are you asking something about this sentence? If the question is whether it's unnatural, I'd say no, it isn't, but there's probably a better way of expressing it, depending on the context and on what the focus is meant to be. It could be, for example, much better to say They spent twenty minutes getting back.

 

[Marika33]

Am I supposed to have contradicted myself somewhere? What's the question exactly?

You suggested, "It's been on its way for two years" as a possible alternative to "It was going for two years (the sentence from the video at 0:47)". You didn't mention it might sound odd. The focus of the phrase from the video is on duration and your possible alternative should naturally express this idea. Then I asked what that sentence would be if the man in the video was talking about a past action, for example something that happened many years ago. You said, "You'd use a past tense in that case, i.e., was instead of has been".

See? Now, to my question, "Is it natural to use "They were on their way (back to [a place]) for [an amount of time]" to talk about the time people spent on/did this action?", you reply with,

So my answer to your question is: No, not 'unnatural', but possibly odd and possibly inappropriate, but also possibly quite appropriate and normal.

(from PM)

Why are "It's been on its way for two years"/"They've been on their way back for 20 minutes"(etc.) possible and wouldn't sound odd while their past versions "It was on its way for two years"/"They were on their way back for 20 minutes" could (sound odd)?

 

[jutfrank]

You suggested, "It's been on its way for two years" as a possible alternative to "It was going for two years (the sentence from the video at 0:47)". You didn't mention it might sound odd.

Then that was an oversight of mine which I now regret.

The focus of the phrase from the video is on duration and your possible alternative should naturally express this idea. Then I asked what that sentence would be if the man in the video was talking about a past action, for example something that happened many years ago. You said, "You'd use a past tense in that case, i.e., was instead of has been".

See?

Consider me properly chastised.

Now, to my question, "Is it natural to use "They were on their way (back to [a place]) for [an amount of time]" to talk about the time people spent on/did this action?", you reply with,

(from PM)

I said it could possibly be considered unnatural and possibly be considered natural.

Why are "It's been on its way for two years"/"They've been on their way back for 20 minutes"(etc.) possible and wouldn't sound odd

Are we going in circles here? Do you want to start again from the beginning?

 

[Marika33]

Are we going in circles here? Do you want to start again from the beginning?

Why? I'd written #12 before you said that the possible alternative you suggested "It's been on its way for two years" was an oversight.

Now, I see that all, "It's been on its way for two years"/"They've been on their way back for 20 minutes" and their past versions "It was on its way for two years"/"They were on their way back for 20 minutes" could possibly be considered unnatural and that's why I'll be only using alternatives such as, "It has taken two years to arrive here"/"They've spent 20 minutes getting back" and their past versions "It took two years to arrive there"/"It took them 20 minutes to get back/They spent 20 minutes getting back".

Consider me properly chastised.

I'm sorry. I don't know what to say. I didn't want this.