He repaired his bike FOR(not in) half an hour.

[BestBuddy]

• Yesterday, before going to work, Alex repaired his bike for half an hour.

Can we say, "The bike wasn't repaired" because he's still repairing it and the bike isn't ready yet?

A: What did Mike do yesterday morning?
B: He repaired his bike for half an hour. The bike hasn't been repaired yet.

 

[emsr2d2]

If it's now not repaired, he didn't repair it at all. He tried to repair it.

Before work yesterday, Alex spent half an hour trying to repair his bike.

 

[BestBuddy]

If it's now not repaired, he didn't repair it at all. He tried to repair it.

Before work yesterday, Alex spent half an hour trying to repair his bike.

How about this?

Let me advise you not to confuse the ideas of completion of the book with the completion of the action. These are different things. The present perfect aspect concerns the latter only.

 

[emsr2d2]

I'm not sure what your point is. The action that's completed in this new context is the trying. The repair is not complete. The "trying to repair" is complete. It ended when he stopped and had to go to work.

 

[BestBuddy]

I'm not sure what your point is. The action that's completed in this new context is the trying. The repair is not complete. The "trying to repair" is complete. It ended when he stopped and had to go to work.

The action of repairing was finished before he went to work, just because it's impossible to go to work while repairing something. No, he didn't try to repair. It was quite easy for him. It's just that some projects take many sessions.

I want you to think, please. The action of repairing was finished, but the object - the bike - wasn't ready yet.

 

[BestBuddy]

I'm not sure what your point is. The action that's completed in this new context is the trying. The repair is not complete. The "trying to repair" is complete. It ended when he stopped and had to go to work.

This is a great English teacher from UK. He's been teaching English all his life. This is what he said:

 

[5jj]

The action of repairing was finished, but the object - the bike - wasn't ready yet.

If the bike was not ready then the repairing it was not finished, as emsr2d2 told you.

 

[emsr2d2]

The action of repairing was finished before he went to work, just because it's impossible to go to work while repairing something. No, he didn't try to repair. It was quite easy for him. It's just that some projects take many sessions.

I want you to think, please. The action of repairing was finished, but the object - the bike - wasn't ready yet.

I think you're failing to understand "repair". The word itself suggests completion of the required repair. In post #1, B clearly says "The bike hasn't been repaired yet" so you made it clear that the repair job wasn't finished. If the full repair project is going to take many sessions, the repair isn't complete until the end of the final session.

In "He repaired his bike yesterday morning", the repair is complete and the action "repair" is finished.
In "He tried to repair his bike his yesterday morning", the repair is not complete and the action "tried to repair" is complete.

The object, "bike", is irrelevant because "bike" isn't an action. It's a noun.

 

[BestBuddy]

If the bike was not ready then the repairing it was not finished, as emsr2d2 told you.

If we had asked Mike yesterday morning, "What are you doing, Mike?", he'd have said, " I'm repairing the bike", not "I'm trying to repair the bike". Right?

 

[BestBuddy]

I think you're failing to understand "repair". The word itself suggests completion of the required repair. In post #1, B clearly says "The bike hasn't been repaired yet" so you made it clear that the repair job wasn't finished. If the full repair project is going to take many sessions, the repair isn't complete until the end of the final session.

In "He repaired his bike yesterday morning", the repair is complete and the action "repair" is finished.
In "He tried to repair his bike his yesterday morning", the repair is not complete and the action "tried to repair" is complete.

The object, "bike", is irrelevant because "bike" isn't an action. It's a noun.

But, Dave says the opposite and he's making a great point. Who's right?



You said, "bike" isn't the action, it's a noun", yes, this is the main point. Look at what Dave says. The action finished, the object(noun) didn't.

 

[5jj]

Have you ever built a wooden boat? (Yes I have, but I didn't finish it)

That is an unnatural example. The question implies completion of the boat, and the response is therefore inappropriate.

 

[BestBuddy]

Ok, I see, I'm not understood.

Let's put it this way.
If somebody asked you, "Have you ever repaired bikes?", would you start thinking whether you completed those, or would you just think of the action that may have taken place in the past?

 

[5jj]

I would take the present-perfect form in that question to imply completion of the actions.

 

[5jj]

If we had asked Mike yesterday morning, "What are you doing, Mike?", he'd have said, " I'm repairing the bike", not "I'm trying to repair the bike". Right?

Right.

When he stops work, he can say "I have repaired the bike" - only if the repair is complete. He cannot say that if the repair is not complete.

 

[BestBuddy]

I would take the present-perfect form in that question to imply completion of the actions.

Couldn't agree more! But some people say only the completion of the action, not the object.



I'd like to ask this way. I think nobody would say it doesn't make a point.

I was told this was a correct sentence and didn't mean completion of the object, only the action, "Alex read a book while Amy watched TV", can we state afterwards that that same Alex has never read that same book? Is it correct?

 

[5jj]

Couldn't agree more! But some people say only the completion of the action, not the object.

In "I have read that book", the action is reading the whole book, not just reading.

I was told this was a correct sentence and didn't mean completion of the object, only the action, "Alex read a book while Amy watched TV", can we state afterwards that that same Alex has never read that same book? Is it correct?

No, we cannot state that. He may have read the book several times before. We also cannot state with certainty that he read the whole book from beginning to end. However, in "Alex ran a mile while Amy watched TV, we can state with certainty that he ran a whole mile, all 1,760 yards of it.

 

[BestBuddy]

No, we cannot state that. He may have read the book several times before. We also cannot state with certainty that he read the whole book from beginning to end.

Please, do not present, you know what I'm talking about. Ok, let's bring here some conditions. We had just published our book and brought the very first copy to Alex. And we saw the following action. Alex read the book while Amy watched TV. She only watched TV for twenty minutes. But our book takes a whole lot time to complete (much more that twenty minutes).

So...

I was told this was a correct sentence and didn't mean completion of the object, only the action, "Alex read a book while Amy watched TV", can we state afterwards that that same Alex has never read that same book? Is it correct?

 

[emsr2d2]

Please, do not present, you know what I'm talking about. Ok, let's bring here in some conditions. We had have just published our a book and brought the very first copy to Alex. And We then saw the following action: Alex read the book while Amy watched TV. She only watched TV for twenty minutes. But our book takes a whole lot more time to complete (much more that twenty minutes).

So...

I still don't know what you're confused about.

If we say "Alex read the book for twenty minutes" (regardless of what Amy was doing at the time), it is very unlikely that he read a whole book from cover to cover, unless it's a very short book. It's more likely that he simply read some of the book. It's also possible that he read for twenty minutes and, at the twenty-minute mark, he reached the last page and finished the book.
If we say "Alex read the book in twenty minutes", it means that it took twenty minutes for him to read the entire book from the first page to the last page.

You're making this far more complicated than it actually is. Context and common sense usually dictate meaning.

(I don't know what "do not present" means in your last post.)

 

[5jj]

Please, do not present, you know what I'm talking about.

I have no idea what you are talking about there.

 

[BestBuddy]

About your corrections: I meant 'had published' not 'have published', how could one imagine the past simple after the present perfect?

We had just published our book and brought the very first copy to Alex. We then saw the following action: Alex read the book while Amy watched TV. She only watched TV for twenty minutes.

I still don't know what you're confused about.

You still don't know what I'm confused about while I still don't know what is not understandable in my messages.

OK. Let's break this down in detail.

1. In my first message, I used the past simple + for + a period of time.

• Yesterday, before going to work, Alex repaired his bike for half an hour.

You said, it was incorrect.

If it's now not repaired, he didn't repair it at all. He tried to repair it.
Before work yesterday, Alex spent half an hour trying to repair his bike.

Now you say, that it's OK to use the past simple + for + a period of time for incomplete objects.

If we say "Alex read the book for twenty minutes" (regardless of what Amy was doing at the time), it is very unlikely that he read a whole book from cover to cover, unless it's a very short book. It's more likely that he simply read some of the book.

According to this logic, it is very unlikely that his bike is ready, even though he repaired it for (not "in") twenty minutes yesterday morning.
It's already delivering, don't miss it.

2. You then said:

I think you're failing to understand "repair". The word itself suggests completion of the required repair.

So I have a logic question:

If we had asked Mike yesterday morning, "What are you doing, Mike?", he'd have said, " I'm repairing the bike", not "I'm trying to repair the bike". Right?

and I was told:

Right.

Please, now it's the time to connect the previous messages using simple logic and common sense.

3. My third message was:

I was told this was a correct sentence and didn't mean completion of the object, only the action, "Alex read a book while Amy watched TV", can we state afterwards that that same Alex has never read that same book? Is it correct?

Then, I got a strange message that reminded me of kindergarten kids who miss the point by adding unnecessary details.

No, we cannot state that. He may have read the book several times before.

But I didn't give up. So I've added some conditions:

We had just published our book and brought the very first copy to Alex. We then saw the following action. Alex read the book while Amy watched TV. She only watched TV for twenty minutes. But our book takes much more time to complete.

and the main question (very simple and logical question summing up all that has been said above) is:

Can we state afterwards that that same Alex has never read that same book?