He repaired/was repairing his car from 7 to 9 p.m.

[Marika33]

You call your husband who, you know, is at home and ask him what he is doing, he says that he's repairing his car and he also says that he started an hour ago. An hour and a half later, at 9:30 p.m., you come home and see that he is no longer in the garage, you assume he finished half an hour ago. Does either of these work?

• He repaired his car from 7 to 9 p.m.
• He was repairing his car from 7 to 9 p.m.

 

[jutfrank]

What do you mean by 'work'? Work to do what? Why would you say this? To whom? Is it meant to be merely a kind of semi-linguistic unarticulated thought in your mind? How are we meant to know which aspect the speaker has in mind?

Perhaps you could try to write a mini-dialogue to help us understand what the thought is.

 

[Marika33]

I don't think in those categories you asked about. My question is an attempt to understand how English can objectively describe the action I wrote about above, or whether English can describe this action with either of those options, and if both are possible, in what situations either of them would be used, and what would be the difference.

Perhaps you could try to write a mini-dialogue to help us understand what the thought is.

A: What did your husband do last night?
B: He came home from work, we had dinner, watched TV for ten minutes and then he <repaired> <was repairing> his car for two hours, from ten to twelve. By the time he was done, I was already sleeping.

 

[Skrej]

I don't think in those categories you asked about.

As has been repeatedly commented, you should.

My question is an attempt to understand how English can objectively describe the action I wrote about above, or whether English can describe this action with either of those options, and if both are possible, in what situations either of them would be used, and what would be the difference.

I think this gets to the root of many of your questions - you seem determined to find broad rules to pigeonhole grammar,despite the fact that many members have repeatedly told you that one can't just isolate the grammar from the context and find a rule that will always apply. Context reigns supreme, not grammar.

Honestly, it's been quite frustrating seeing the flood of thread after thread asking essentially the same thing. I'm going to take a break from even opening your posts for a while.

 

[Marika33]

Honestly, it's been quite frustrating seeing the flood of thread after thread asking essentially the same thing.

The reason why I've asked similar questions is I still haven't heard any real answer.

I think this gets to the root of many of your questions - you seem determined to find broad rules to pigeonhole grammar,despite the fact that many members have repeatedly told you that one can't just isolate the grammar from the context and find a rule that will always apply. Context reigns supreme, not grammar.

OK, my mistake, I worded my question wrong. I'll try this way.

Is there any possible context for "He repaired his car from 7 to 9 p.m." to be used?
My understanding is that this sentence is wrong. "He repaired his car" means the thing got successfully repaired (doesn't it?), but the addition of the period "from 7 to 9 p.m." indicates the process itself without mentioning the outcome, so I think this sentence is ungrammatical and the idea should only be expressed in the past continuous.

 

[jutfrank]

Is there any possible context for "He repaired his car from 7 to 9 p.m." to be used?

You're still approaching things from the wrong direction.

Start with what you want to say, and then ask how to express it. It's no good creating something that you don't know the meaning of, and then trying to find a meaning that fits.

I'm pretty sure that what you're doing is that you're starting with a thought in Ukrainian, and then expressing that thought with a Ukrainian sentence, and then translating something about that sentence (I'm still not sure what it is because I don't know Ukrainian but I know it's related somehow to Russian aspect) into English, based on your understanding (which is decent but not yet complete) of English aspect, and then trying to confirm with us whether your translation is a good one.

Can you tell me if I've understood correctly?

 

[Marika33]

Can you tell me if I've understood correctly?

To be honest, I'm not sure. I wouldn't say it's a thought that appeared in my native language, but rather a universal thought, something anyone could think of.

Start with what you want to say, and then ask how to express it. It's no good creating something that you don't know the meaning of, and then trying to find a meaning that fits.

I'm sorry, what do you mean by "creating something that you don't know the meaning of"?

What do I want to say? I want to talk about what happened in the past, for example, two days ago.
Somebody (your friend, your husband, your boss, all of them, anybody) started repairing their car at 7 p.m. Two hour later, at 9 p.m. they were no longer repairing it. They had either finished or stopped a couple of minutes before. How would you talk about this action? Is it possible to say "He repaired his car from 7 to 9 p.m." to describe it or, because of the fact that "repaired" means the successful outcome, the only possible way to describe this action is to frame it in the past continuous?

 

[jutfrank]

I'm sorry, what do you mean by "creating something that you don't know the meaning of"?

You make up a sentence and then you ask us what it means. That's the wrong way round.

What do I want to say? It's pretty simple. I want to talk about what happened in the past, for example, two days ago.
Somebody (your friend, your husband, your boss, all of them, anybody) started repairing his car at 7 p.m. Two hour later, at 9 p.m. they were no longer repairing it. They had either finished or stopped a couple of minutes before. How would you talk about this action?

Why would you want to talk about that? To whom? I mean, what's the context? We need the context so we can attempt to understand which aspect the speaker has in mind.

Remember what I've said before: the past continuous needs some point in past time in order to make sense. The problem with your uncontextualised sentence is that you haven't given us enough to know whether there is one.

Is it possible to say "He repaired his car from 7 to 9 p.m." to describe it or, because of the fact that "repaired" means the successful outcome, the only possible way to describe this action is to frame it in the past continuous?

I suggest you stop asking what's 'possible'. Write for us a mini-dialogue, so we can see the narrative context that you're imagining.

Also, since the telicity/atelicity of the verb 'repair' (whether it's understood as a successfully completed action) is interfering with the aspect of the verb tense, combined with the interference of the durational time phrase, make for a problematic sentence for the purpose of study. In other words, it's a poor example to work with.

If you change 'repair' to 'working on' (which is only atelic), you'll remove part of the problem.

 

[Marika33]

Remember what I've said before: the past continuous needs some point in past time in order to make sense.

Isn't "from ... till ...." that point in past time?

If you change 'repair' to 'working on' (which is only atelic), you'll remove part of the problem.

Yes, I now use these phrases a lot in my speech to take that telic sense out of verbs.

• He worked on (repairing) his car from 7 to 9 p.m.
• He spent from 7 to 9 p.m repairing his car. (trying to repair?)

But I was curious if I could just use the main verb.

• He repaired his car from 7 to 9 p.m.

 

[jutfrank]

Isn't "from ... till ...." that point in past time?

No. It's a duration. A duration is the time between two points in time.

But I was curious if I could just use the main verb.

• He repaired his car from 7 to 9 p.m.

Well, yes, you can if you want. But you have a responsibility to make yourself clearly understood. The fact that it's not typical for the verb 'repair' to be used atelically like that, which is what you mean, is potentially problematic for the interpreter.