From 1887 to 1892, they took part in three wars.

[Marika33]

In this thread, I was told by several members of this forum that the default tense for actions happening throughout a certain period of time is the past simple.

But, the problem with using the past simple with periods of time is quite severe: how to decide if the action was actually taking place/happening from the beginning of the period until the end of it, or whether the action just happened (perhaps several times) somewhere in the middle of that period. For example, "From 2010 to 2019 EA bought 3 companies". It's clear here that EA was not buying these companies from 2010 to 2019, those were instant actions that happened between 2010 and 2019. But here, "He cooked dinner from six till eight", it looks like the same thing to me again. It's like an instant action that happened somewhere in the middle of the period of two hours. That's why I think it's better (IF we don't want to be ambiguous) to use the past continuous in such cases, if you're actually talking about an action that started at the beginning of the period and finished at the end of it.

Some examples:
From 1887 to 1892, they took part in three wars. (= by the end of this period, they had taken part in three wars, we don't know how many times they spent on each one)
From 1887 to 1892, they were taking part in three wars. (looks completely different to me = they were in the middle of those wars that whole period)

From two to three, he cooked four meals. (= by the end of this period he had cooked four meals, we don't know how much time he spent on each one)
From two to three, he was cooking four meals. (looks completely different to me = He was cooking these four meal, most probably at the same time, that whole period)

Does it make sense to you? If not, I'm afraid English has serious logical flaws.

 

[jutfrank]

For example, "From 2010 to 2019 EA bought 3 companies". It's clear here that EA was not buying these companies from 2010 to 2019, those were instant actions that happened between 2010 and 2019.

Use the phrase between 2010 and 2019 to show the time period within which the three single actions happened.

But here, "He cooked dinner from six till eight", it looks like the same thing to me again. It's like an instant action that happened somewhere in the middle of the period of two hours.

No. Here, the phrase from six 'til eight implies that the action lasted throughout the two hours. Compare the following:

a) He cooked dinner between 6.00 and 8.00.
b) He cooked dinner from 6.00 until 8.00.

Sentence a) says that the action happened at some point within the time period and sentence b) says that the action lasted the whole time.

That's why I think it's better (IF we don't want to be ambiguous) to use the past continuous in such cases, if you're actually talking about an action that started at the beginning of the period and finished at the end of it.

No, that's not right.

From 1887 to 1892, they took part in three wars. (= by the end of this period, they had taken part in three wars, we don't know how many times they spent on each one)

Here, the writer really means to say 'Between 1887 and 1892', similar to the EA example above. It's not exactly wrong to use 'from/to' in this context, but it's more precise to use 'between/and' when you want to state a time frame within which discrete single punctual actions took place.

From 1887 to 1892, they were taking part in three wars. (looks completely different to me = they were in the middle of those wars that whole period)

That's incorrect. The past continuous is inappropriate in this context.

From two to three, he cooked four meals. (= by the end of this period he had cooked four meals, we don't know how much time he spent on each one)

This is an awkward sentence to interpret. Where did you find it?

Given the use of 'from/to', I would probably interpret that the cooking lasted the whole time. It isn't clear, so not a good example to use.

From two to three, he was cooking four meals. (looks completely different to me = He was cooking these four meal, most probably at the same time, that whole period)

Without context, it's hard to see any reason to use a past continuous here, but that's not to say that it's not possible. As was mentioned in previous threads, the past continuous works contextually in that it normally requires other verb phrases for it to relate to. (I often say that it provides 'situational context' for other actions). I think this is what you mean by it not being a 'default' choice, right?

Does it make sense to you?

I think I'm starting to see what's confusing you, yes. It's the way that aspect is interpreted in English, which is tremendously complicated and hard to understand for native English speakers, let alone for Ukrainian speakers, in whose language aspect is very much different.

If not, I'm afraid English has serious logical flaws.

I'm afraid it's your understanding that's flawed. Allow me to try to explain:

a) He cooked dinner.

The past simple verb expresses a simple single completed action.

b) He cooked dinner from 6.00 to 8.00.

Here, the time phrase 'from 6.00 to 8.00' modifies the aspect of the verb 'cooked' such that it now expresses a duration of cooking activity. The combination of the verb phrase and the time phrase together contributes to the overall interpretation of the aspect expressed by the sentence. There's nothing wrong or 'illogical' with sentence b)—it's perfectly grammatical and natural.

c) He was cooking dinner from 6.00 until 8.00.

Here, the verb phrase expresses the durative nature of the action by itself. The time phrase modifies it in such a way as to reinforce the durative aspect already expressed by the verb phrase.

Tell me if this makes sense or not to you. If not, I'm happy to try explaining in another way.