We <were preparing> <prepared> to rob the bank there until you got involved in all that nonsense.

[Michaelll]

While I was watching an old American movie a couple of hours ago, I heard this phrase:

• We were preparing to rob the bank there until you got involved in all that nonsense.

I noticed that the sentence contains an action verb, the past continuous and 'until' - just the combination our teachers and books have been telling us about all along.
I asked about this time marker 'until' (with action verbs) on this forum, in one of my previous threads and I was told that it doesn't have to be the past continuous (as opposed to what our teachers keep telling us). So even if the book wasn't finished, it's OK to say "I read a book until something happened, say, she called me" - there's no need to use the past continuous, again, even if the book wasn't finished, which is very, very strange to me!! So, could you please explain to me, why the phrase from the movie contains the past continuous? My idea is that because 'we' didn't really prepare (= didn't actually finish preparing), but if this is the reason (is this? I'm still not sure), then I have no idea why the past simple works with the book example (just mentioned). I'm losing hope in trying to truly understand this.

 

[emsr2d2]

The preparations were ongoing at the time the nonsense involvement started.

I was cooking dinner until you came home and produced a takeaway.
They were playing tennis until it started raining.

 

[jutfrank]

I asked about this time marker 'until' (with action verbs) on this forum, in one of my previous threads and I was told that it doesn't have to be the past continuous (as opposed to what our teachers keep telling us).

Your teachers really told you that you have to use past continuous before until? That isn't true at all. Are you sure you understood them properly?

So even if the book wasn't finished, it's OK to say "I read a book until something happened, say, she called me" - there's no need to use the past continuous, again, even if the book wasn't finished, which is very, very strange to me!! So, could you please explain to me, why the phrase from the movie contains the past continuous?

I understand almost nothing of this. Why are you talking about reading a book? Let's focus on one sentence at a time.

 

[Barque]

So, could you please explain to me, why the phrase from the movie contains the past continuous?

It works there. The sentence you heard makes sense.

The speaker and others were preparing to rob a bank.
Then the other person got involved in something the speaker calls nonsense.
Then they presumably stopped preparing to rob the bank.

 

[Michaelll]

Your teachers really told you that you have to use past continuous before until? That isn't true at all. Are you sure you understood them properly?

Yes, I'm sure I understood what they meant.

Have a look (click), it might be interesting to you. Not only in Belarus, but also some of my Russian and Ukrainian friends have tests of the same kind in schools/colleges/universities. It's even written in many (I think in almost all) of our textbooks on English grammar. And there are hundreds of YouTube videos (on English grammar) where people teach the same thing.

The preparations were ongoing at the time the nonsense involvement started.

I was cooking dinner until you came home and produced a takeaway.
They were playing tennis until it started raining.

Ok, what's then the difference between these two?

1. I cooked dinner until you came home.
2. I was cooking dinner until you came home.

I suppose, it should only be the second one (not the first one), because if you cooked dinner, well, you cooked it, but 'until' sounds like you might not have finished it - so, to my mind - the past continuous is the only one possible. In the other case I'd use "I cooked dinner before you came home" not 'until'. Does it make sense to you?

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, I'm sure I understood what they meant.

Now please forgive me for doubting you, but as a teacher and teacher trainer I do have an insight into the methods that teachers use that you may not have. When they talk about signal words, they're trying to create associations in your mind. If I give you as my student an exercise where I'm asking you to use the past continuous and you fail to do so, then your answer is wrong, as far I'm concerned. That doesn't mean it's not correct grammatically, or not possible, but since you haven't done what I asked, you won't get the marks.

Ok, what's then the difference between these two?

1. I cooked dinner until you came home.
2. I was cooking dinner until you came home.

Okay, good—a simple question! The difference between them is the aspect of the main clause. Aspect is the way that the speaker conceives the relation of the action expressed by the verb to the timeframe within which it occurs. So both 1. and 2. are 'possible', both 'work' in their respective contexts, and both are grammatical. However, since they differ in aspect, they differ in meaning. Your goal now should be to understand this difference.

I suppose, it should only be the second one (not the first one), because if you cooked dinner, well, you cooked it, but 'until' sounds like you might not have finished it - so, to my mind - the past continuous is the only one possible.

No. Read again what I've said above.

In the other case I'd use "I cooked dinner before you came home" not 'until'. Does it make sense to you?

I think I'm starting to understand why you keep talking about actions being 'finished'. I think this is because you're confusing lexical aspect with grammatical aspect. Lexical aspect is the aspect given by words rather than by 'tenses'. Do you remember your thread from months ago where we talked about the telic and atelic semantics of the verb phrase read a book? Well, you can make the same distinction here with the verb phrase cook dinner. It is not necessary to interpret the past simple cooked dinner to mean that the cooking process was completed.

One point of strong advice I want to give you is this: stop making up your own example sentences. Let us do that. If you want to understand aspect, it is crucial that you study good examples, which serve to highlight, not confuse, differences in meaning. Look at the following exchange:

A: What did you do last night when you got home?
B: I went straight to bed and read my book until I fell asleep.

Can you understand the narrative context of person B's response? Now answer the following two questions:

1) Is it likely that person B would use the past continuous instead of the past simple? Why?/Why not?
2) Is the verb phrase read my book interpreted as telic or atelic?

 

[Michaelll]

One point of strong advice I want to give you is this: stop making up your own example sentences. Let us do that.

I would be delighted if you do that. But I don't think it's polite to ask you for it. By the way, the cooking dinner example wasn't mine, it was Emsr2d2's from #2.

Ok, what's then the difference between these two?

1. I cooked dinner until you came home.
2. I was cooking dinner until you came home.

Okay, good—a simple question! The difference between them is the aspect of the main clause. Aspect is the way that the speaker conceives the relation of the action expressed by the verb to the timeframe within which it occurs. So both 1. and 2. are 'possible', both 'work' in their respective contexts, and both are grammatical. However, since they differ in aspect, they differ in meaning. Your goal now should be to understand this difference.

Yes, the problem is that I'd thought the difference between the two was that the past simple one was incorrect (because - as I thought - if you cooked something, you cooked it), but as it has turned out to be I was wrong, so now I don't see any difference between the two "cooked ... until" and " was cooking ... until".

B: I went straight to bed and read my book until I fell asleep.

Can you understand the narrative context of person B's response? Now answer the following two questions:

1) Is it likely that person B would use the past continuous instead of the past simple? Why?/Why not?
2) Is the verb phrase read my book interpreted as telic or atelic?

I think the verb phrase is interpreted as atelic. Interestingly enough, my English teacher would say B's reply is not correct, I would think the same if I hadn't seen it written by you. I'd have written it either in the past continuous, "I went straight to bed and was reading a/my book until I fell asleep" or I'd have added "some of" as a necessary complement, "I went straight to bed and read some of a/my book until I fell asleep".

Thanks so much again for your help. I see that you understand what my questions are about.

 

[jutfrank]

I would be delighted if you do that. But I don't think it's polite to ask you for it.

We're happy to do this. It isn't impolite to ask, don't worry.

Yes, the problem is that I'd thought the difference between the two was that the past simple one was incorrect (because - as I thought - if you cooked something, you cooked it), but as it has turned out to be I was wrong, so now I don't see any difference between the two "cooked ... until" and " was cooking ... until".

That's okay. It's better to see no difference than to see a difference that isn't there. It's a normal part of a learning process to unlearn something then relearn it anew.

I think the verb phrase is interpreted as atelic.

That's right, yes.

Interestingly enough, my English teacher would say B's reply is not correct,

Are you really sure about this? I'll have to take your word for it. The truth is that B's reply is correct and very natural. I wrote it deliberately to be so.

I would think the same if I hadn't seen it written by you. I'd have written it either in the past continuous, "I went straight to bed and was reading a/my book until I fell asleep"

That wouldn't fit at all with the narrative, would it? Notice that person A used the past simple in her question. Both people are using the same narrative aspect. That means they're thinking of a past time and the actions within which there occurred in the same way. There's no reason for person B to change the aspect. Indeed, it would be odd to do so.

or I'd have added "some of" as a necessary complement, "I went straight to bed and read some of a/my book until I fell asleep".

As you now know, that's not necessary at all.

 

[Michaelll]

Interestingly enough, my English teacher would say B's reply is not correct,

Are you really sure about this? I'll have to take your word for it. The truth is that B's reply is correct and very natural. I wrote it deliberately to be so.

Yes, I'm 100% sure. Even when I tried to talk to my teacher and explain that I'd heard and seen the past simple with those 'signal words' (with action verbs), she told me something like "This is not good English. Some people just like to simplify what they say, so they use the past simple when they should use the past continuous".

Ok, if you're right, and the past simple is also OK with 'until' (with action verbs), then how do you define whether the action was complete?

• I fixed my car until 5 a.m.

How do we know if he actually fixed it? (I would really prefer the past continuous here "I was fixing my car until 5 a.m.")

Well, you can make the same distinction here with the verb phrase cook dinner. It is not necessary to interpret the past simple cooked dinner to mean that the cooking process was completed.

Please, could you help me understand, if what you've said above is true (I'm sure it is), then what is the difference between these two (below)? I don't see any difference at all (in terms of what the action was and what was the result of the action).

1. I cooked dinner until you came home.
2. I was cooking dinner until you came home.

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, I'm 100% sure. Even when I tried to talk to my teacher and explain that I'd heard and seen the past simple with those 'signal words' (with action verbs), she told me something like "This is not good English. Some people just like to simplify what they say, so they use the past simple when they should use the past continuous".

Okay, well, I don't know what to say about that.

Ok, if you're right,

Trust me that I am right, Michaelll!

and the past simple is also OK with 'until' (with action verbs), then how do you define whether the action was complete?

• I fixed my car until 5 a.m.

Since the speaker has used the word until, the most likely interpretation is an atelic one.

Please don't keep making up poor examples like this one. Remember that not all action verbs can have both telic/atelic aspect. Remember not to confuse grammatical aspect with lexical aspect. One way to keep this distinction is by carefully selecting example sentences to study.

How do we know if he actually fixed it?

We could ask him.

(I would really prefer the past continuous here "I was fixing my car until 5 a.m.")

Why? Are you still missing the point?

Please, could you help me understand, if what you've said above is true (I'm sure it is)

You don't sound that sure!

, then what is the difference between these two (below)? I don't see any difference at all (in terms of what the action was and what was the result of the action).

1. I cooked dinner until you came home.
2. I was cooking dinner until you came home.

The difference is the aspect. I've already told you that.

Look, if you want to continue with this, you should do two things:

1) Make sure you separate grammatical aspect from lexical aspect.
2) Select examples sentences carefully.

These are the two biggest mistakes that you're making. Your mind can't yet accept that the verb cooked does not mean that the action was finished. This is because you're thinking in Byelorussian. The only way you can make sense of the sentence is by adding an extra grammatical aspect that doesn't belong.

The pair of sentences above is not useful to you. If you can't see the difference between them, then find another pair where you can see the difference. I'm nmot surprised at all that you can't see the difference between them because it isn't clear. The only way to make it clear is to add context. But anyway, you don't even need to compare sentence pairs at all to understand this.

Look at the following sentences, all of which use exactly the same grammar, and all of which use verbs that are clearly not telic. Do you still have the same problem?

They walked until they couldn't walk any more.
She lived until she was 104 years old.
We laughed until our sides hurt.
I went home and ate ice cream until I threw up.

 

[Michaelll]

The difference is the aspect. I've already told you that.

Sorry, but that doesn't tell me anything, anything at all. What difference does it make? I can't see it now.

• I fixed my car until 5 a.m.

(I would really prefer the past continuous here "I was fixing my car until 5 a.m.")

Why? Are you still missing the point?

How should I know if I am? It's just how we have all been taught.

Since the speaker has used the word until, the most likely interpretation is an atelic one.

Please don't keep making up poor examples like this one. Remember that not all action verbs can have both telic/atelic aspect. Remember not to confuse grammatical aspect with lexical aspect. One way to keep this distinction is by carefully selecting example sentences to study.

"Please don't keep making up poor examples like this one" - how do I know if it's a poor example? Why "I fixed my car until..." is a poor example while "I cooked dinner until..." is not a poor one? If I stop making example sentences at all, then I will completely lose the ability to speak English.
"Remember that not all action verbs can have both telic/atelic aspect" - the most important question of all is how are we, learners of English, supposed to know if a verb has the atelic aspect? Nobody ever teaches that. Please step into my shoes and look at it from my side.

 

[Barque]

I don't know if I'm saying the same thing as Jutfrank--I can't explain grammar. But neither "I fixed my car until 5 am" nor "I cooked dinner till you came home" sound natural to me. They're grammatical but unidiomatic.

The word "fixed" carries a connotation of completeness. You can say "I fixed my car" or "I was working on my car till 5 am". But "I fixed my car till 5 am" sounds as if you repeatedly fixed it till 5 am, which is of course something no one would do. This isn't based on grammar--this is based on the customary way the word "fixed" is used.

how are we, learners of English, supposed to know if a verb has the atelic aspect?

As far as I know there are no rules to determine how to use a verb. Some work in a particular way and others differently. You just have to get a feel for it which will only come with regular practice.

 

[Michaelll]

I don't know if I'm saying the same thing as Jutfrank--I can't explain grammar. But neither "I fixed my car until 5 am" nor "I cooked dinner till you came home" sound natural to me. They're grammatical but unidiomatic.

Yes, we are taught the same! That's why I think the past continuous would be much, much better in both. By the way, this is exactly what emsr2d2 did in #2. (used the past continuous)

The preparations were ongoing at the time the nonsense involvement started.

I was cooking dinner until you came home and produced a takeaway.
They were playing tennis until it started raining.

 

[Barque]

Yes, we are taught the same!

However it's perfectly fine to say "I read a book till 5 am". "Read" and "fixed" work differently.

And just to confuse you further,
"I have read a book for two hours",
"I've been reading a book for two hours" and
"I read a book for two hours",
are all fine in the right situation.

But I wouldn't say "I have read this book since 5 am".

 

[Michaelll]

However it's perfectly fine to say "I read a book till 5 am". "Read" and "fixed" work differently.

And just to confuse you further,
"I have read a book for two hours",
"I've been reading a book for two hours" and
"I read a book for two hours",
are all fine in the right situation.

But I wouldn't say "I have read this book since 5 am".

Why? How is anybody supposed to know that?

 

[Barque]

By constant exposure to the language.

Why?

There's no point asking why. You might as well ask why "fix" is spelt "fix" and not "fics". That's just how it is.

 

[Michaelll]

There's no point asking why. You might as well ask why "fix" is spelt "fix" and not "fics". That's just how it is.

I disagree. There's always point in asking why. If I know why, I might know if a verb has the atelic meaning or not. Knowing why might help to decide. Unfortunately, you just can't explain why. I'm not sure if anybody can...

 

[jutfrank]

Sorry, but that doesn't tell me anything, anything at all. What difference does it make? I can't see it now.

I know you can't. So you should try to find a pair where you can see the difference. Do you understand what I'm saying?

How should I know if I am? It's just how we have all been taught.

I'm telling you that you are. To advance, you must forget some of what you've been taught.

"Please don't keep making up poor examples like this one" - how do I know if it's a poor example?

If you make up a sentence which you yourself don't understand, then it's a poor one. Let us make up the examples for you. That's what teachers are for.

Why "I fixed my car until..." is a poor example while "I cooked dinner until..." is not a poor one?

Neither is a good example for you to work with.

If I stop making example sentences at all, then I will completely lose the ability to speak English.

It's okay to make up sentences as long as you have a very clear idea of what you mean and a well-defined context within which you mean to use it. Otherwise, don't do it.

"Remember that not all action verbs can have both telic/atelic aspect" - the most important question of all is how are we, learners of English, supposed to know if a verb has the atelic aspect?

That is a good question, yes. Learning about the meaning of words is very hard, and takes a long time.

Nobody ever teaches that.

Not in your limited experience, perhaps.

Please step into my shoes and look at it from my side.

If there's one thing I'm trying very hard to do, it's to step into your shoes! This is my profession, it's what I do. Like other members, I'm trying to teach you here free of charge, so please listen carefully. If you want to arrange to have paid lessons, I can offer you some recommendations of very good teachers who can help you.

 

[jutfrank]

I don't know if I'm saying the same thing as Jutfrank--I can't explain grammar. But neither "I fixed my car until 5 am" nor "I cooked dinner till you came home" sound natural to me. They're grammatical but unidiomatic.

I'm saying that Michaell should ignore these sentences, as they aren't helping at all.

The word "fixed" carries a connotation of completeness. You can say "I fixed my car" or "I was working on my car till 5 am". But "I fixed my car till 5 am" sounds as if you repeatedly fixed it till 5 am, which is of course something no one would do. This isn't based on grammar--this is based on the customary way the word "fixed" is used.

Yes. In other words, it has to do with whether the verb fix can have an atelic aspect. That is, whether you can fix something for a period of time without accomplishing the task. I think the answer is unclear, which is why I suggest that Michaelll ignore this particular example. It's confusing and isn't helping.

 

[jutfrank]

Why?

Because of the meaning of the verbs.

How is anybody supposed to know that?

They learn it, of course. How do you think we know this kind of thing where you don't? We learned it as children. You have to do the same.