He (has) defended four people in court this week.

[Marika33]

No.

Why?

Why does this sentence "He has defended four people in court this week" give no indication of the outcome while these two "Last week I trained four dogs to give paw" and "We read books, watched movies, and he also taught me how to play the piano" do give the indication of the successful outcome?

I thought that the last two sentences don't mean that the actions were successful, even if it may be suggested.

This week I have trained four dogs to give paw. (= the dogs have been successfully trained)

If you're talking about sentence meaning, this does not mean that the training was successful, even if it is suggested.

 

[Tarheel]

He defended four people in court this week.

That can be expressed in a different way: He represented four people in court this week. Does that tell you what the outcome was?

(Earlier I assumed (perhaps mistakenly) that we were talking about criminal court. However, maybe he represented his clients in civil court.)

We discussed this one earlier. Were the explanations inadequate?

The verbs you use do matter. Each one has a specific meaning.

 

[Marika33]

The verbs you use do matter. Each one has a specific meaning.

I'm just very surprised that the first verb (from the first example sentence) doesn't give the indication of the successful outcome, while the last two, for some reason unknown to me, do give the indication of the successful outcome.

1. He has defended four people in court this week. (gives no indication of the outcome - it's just "an activity")
2. Last week I trained four dogs to give paw. (gives the indication of a successfully completed action)
3. We read books, watched movies, and he also taught me how to play the piano. (gives the indication of a successfully completed action)

Ok, let me please ask you, what should I change the verbs in the last two to show activities?

 

[emsr2d2]

The basic difference between them is that "defend" doesn't include any suggestion of success or lack of it, but "trained" inherently implies success.

 

[Tarheel]

You must be an amazingly gifted student. (Even Mozart didn't learn how to play the piano in one evening.)

 

[jutfrank]

Do you think all native speakers would agree with this? If so, it would make sense to me.

I'm not sure why you'd ask me that, or why you consider that relevant.

I'm always having difficulties with how to talk about activities in English when I don't want to stress if the action is successful.

• Yesterday we met for the first time in ten years. We were delighted to finally see each other. We had a wonderful evening together. We read books, watched excerpts from movies. And he also taught me how to play the piano.
  (I want to say about the activity of teaching, not about a successfully completed action)

Does this sentence also work as the one from #1 "He has defended four people in court this week" with no indication of the outcome?

Of course, in this context, no one would interpret that he successfully taught you all that there is possible to know about playing the piano. What would it even mean to say that you've successfully completed learning the piano?

The sentence does what you want it to do: it says that he gave you a piano lesson. The implication in this context is that you couldn't play at all before this particular evening.

 

[Marika33]

The basic difference between them is that "defend" doesn't include any suggestion of success or lack of it, but "trained" inherently implies success.

Thanks! That's the answer that actually makes sense. Wow, I can't even imagine how many more verbs in English I'm going to have to find that are only used to imply success, while others can be used to talk about activities (in the simple aspect) without implying the outcome.

Of course, in this context, no one would interpret that he successfully taught you all that there is possible to know about playing the piano. What would it even mean to say that you've successfully completed learning the piano?

So it turns out that the context actually makes it different, and in a proper context we can use "trained"/"taught" in the past simple/present perfect in the uncompleted way (talking about an activity)?

I'm not sure why you'd ask me that, or why you consider that relevant.

I just noticed that your opinions sometimes differ, especially on this topic. That's why I asked it.
For example, look at what Tarheel said in #25 and 5jj in #20.

 

[Marika33]

The basic difference between them is that "defend" doesn't include any suggestion of success or lack of it, but "trained" inherently implies success.

I'd like to ask you one more question on this. What about this context, is it OK for A to say that last sentence in this context? I asked a British friend of mine this question, and he said, "it's fine". But... that contradicts your statement, which I've put in bold.

A: Yesterday I trained my dog in for [an amount of time, let's say forty minutes].
B: What did you train her to do? (we know it's a girl)
A: (?) I trained her to give paw. (not completely, of course)

 

[Piscean]

A: Yesterday I trained my dog in for [an amount of time, let's say forty minutes].
B: What did you train her? (we know it's a girl)
A: (?) I trained her to give paw. (not completely, of course)

The main problem with that dialogue is that, if the dog was not trained to give paw, then A would not have produced that first sentence. They are more likely to have said something like "I spent forty minutes yesterday trying to train/get my dog to give paw".

 

[Marika33]

The main problem with that dialogue is that, if the dog was not trained to give paw, then A would not have produced that first sentence.

I have personally heard that sentence said by a native English speaker. That's actually the moment I thought of asking about it in #11.

I spent forty minutes yesterday trying to train/get my dog to give paw.

Is it necessary for me to add "trying to train" instead of just "training"? I mean, if my friend had called me during the training and asked me "What are you doing?", I'd have said, "I'm training my dog to give paw (not I'm trying to train...)".

 

[Piscean]

Is it necessary for me to add "trying to train" instead of just "training"?

Yes, if the training was not successfully completed.

I mean, if my friend had called me during the training and asked me "What are you doing?", I'd have said, "I'm training my dog to give paw (not I'm trying to train...)".

That's a different situation. At the time of speaking, it is not yet clear that the training will not be completely successful.

 

[Piscean]

I have personally heard that sentence said by a native English speaker.

I don't doubt it. However, as i said before, if there were no more context, I would assume that the dogs could give paw after the training.

 

[Marika33]

Is it necessary for me to add "trying to train" instead of just "training"?

Yes, if the training was not successfully completed.

So I should necessarily add "trying" to the sentence "Yesterday I spent forty minutes training trying to train my dog to give paw", because as you've said the action may not have been successfully completed.

How about this one, "Yesterday evening I spent twenty minutes painting a wall in my room"?
Should I also add "trying to paint" if I'm going to complete the work tonight or tomorrow (by analogy with the previous sentence)?

And how about just using the past continuous? A lot of my friends back at school did that, and even my teacher taught it to us. They said "the past continuous" is for incomplete actions, which is the case in these sentences.

• Yesterday I was training my dog to give paw for forty minutes.
• Yesterday evening I was painting a wall in my room for twenty minutes.

 

[Tarheel]

@Marika33

* Yesterday I spent forty minutes training my dog to give paw. *

There is no reason to use "try" there.

*Yesterday evening I spent twenty minutes painting a wall in my room.*

I assume you got some paint on the wall. How would "try" go in there?

Every single verb means something different.

 

[Marika33]

* Yesterday I spent forty minutes training my dog to give paw. *

There is no reason to use "try" there.

*Yesterday evening I spent twenty minutes painting a wall in my room.*

I assume you got some paint on the wall. How would "try" go in there?

There's a reason I asked that. Look at what Piscean said in #31.

They are more likely to have said something like "I spent forty minutes yesterday trying to train/get my dog to give paw".

Is it necessary for me to add "trying to train" instead of just "training"?

Yes, if the training was not successfully completed.

Another time I've seen native speakers disagree with each other.

 

[Piscean]

So I should necessarily add "trying" to the sentence "Yesterday I spent forty minutes training trying to train my dog to give paw", because as you've said the action may not have been successfully completed.

That was not what you wrote in your original sentence - Yesterday I trained my dog in for [an amount of time, let's say forty minutes].

 

[Tarheel]

@Marika33 I need you to respond to my post and not quote Piscean when you do so.

You seem to think Piscean and I disagree with each other. However, I don't think so.

We need to work on one sentence at a time.

You seem to be obsessed with grammar.

Your goal should be to learn how to say what you need to say when you want to say it.

 

[Marika33]

You seem to think Piscean and I disagree with each other. However, I don't think so.

Piscean wrote #29 that native speakers are more likely to say something like "I spent forty minutes yesterday trying to train my dog to give paw", and then #30 I asked him if "trying to train" was necessary in that sentence or I might as well say "training", and he wrote #31 that "Yes (it is necessary), if the training was not successfully completed". See? Then #34 Tarheel wrote that "There is no reason to use try there". Herein lies the obvious disagreement. I hope now it is clear.

We need to work on one sentence at a time.

If I had started a new thread on a different sentence concerning the same grammar issue, the moderators would've said that I couldn't start a new thread on the same topic.

Your goal should be to learn how to say what you need to say when you want to say it.

This is what I'm doing here.

So, how about just using the past continuous? A lot of my friends back at school did that, and even my teacher taught it to us. They said "the past continuous" is for incomplete actions, which is the case in these sentences.

• Yesterday I was training my dog to give paw for forty minutes. (instead of "Yesterday I spent forty minutes training my dog to give paw.")
• Yesterday evening I was painting a wall in my room for twenty minutes. (instead of "Yesterday I spent twenty minutes painting a wall in my room.")

 

[Tarheel]

*Yesterday I was training my dog to give paw ...*

When somebody called? When you heard a knock on the door? What?

*Yesterday I spent forty minutes training my dog to give paw."

OK.

*Yesterday I was painting a wall in my room for twenty minutes.*

When what happened?

"Yesterday I spent twenty minutes painting a wall in my room.*

OK.

 

[Marika33]

*Yesterday I was training my dog to give paw ...*
When somebody called? When you heard a knock on the door? What?

*Yesterday I spent forty minutes training my dog to give paw."
OK.

*Yesterday I was painting a wall in my room for twenty minutes.*
When what happened?

"Yesterday I spent twenty minutes painting a wall in my room.*
OK.

It's interesting because earlier I thought that the past continuous doesn't work as the main idea if we don't include the duration "for [an amount of time)", but adding the duration solves the problem. Like:
A: Yesterday I was training my dog to give paw.
B: And... what happened?
-
A: Yesterday I was training my dog to give paw for forty minutes.
B: I got it!

Ok, now I understand, the past continuous doesn't work as the main idea (only as a side action) even if we add the duration. Thanks!

So in order to show the duration (for [an amount of time]) of an action that if the main verb in the past simple is used with shows completion/success, we use "spend [an amount of time] and [the present participle of the main verb]", the past continuous isn't an option for the main idea.

But what then should I do with not just the duration (for [an amount of time]), but periods of time, e.g. [from Tuesday to Thirsday] or [from 10 am. to 1 pm.]? I suppose (maybe, I'm wrong), the solution to the previous problem (using before the main verb the verb "spend") would not work here. What should I do in this case?

Yesterday I trained my dog to give paw for forty minutes.
Yesterday I was training my dog to give paw for forty minutes. -- doesn't work as the main idea
Yesterday I spent forty minutes training my dog to give paw. -- works fine
Solved.

Yesterday I painted a wall in my room for twenty minutes.
Yesterday I was painting a wall in my room for twenty minutes. -- doesn't work as the main idea
Yesterday I spent twenty minutes painting a wall in my room. -- works fine
Solved.

Yesterday I trained my dog to give paw from 12:20 to 13:00.
Yesterday I was training my dog to give paw from 12:20 to 13:00.
Yesterday I spent from 12:20 to 13:00 training my dog to give paw.

Yesterday I painted a wall in my room from 18:20 to 18:40.
Yesterday I was painting a wall in my room from 18:20 to 18:40.
Yesterday I spent from 18:20 to 18:40 painting a wall in my room.