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

[Michaelll]

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.

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.

This is the exact reason why all our (I mean Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian) textbooks and teachers (literally - almost every last one of them!) say the same thing about those 'time markers' and the use of the past continuous.

 

[jutfrank]

Are you still at school, Michaelll? Or at university? What kind of teachers are you talking about?

 

[Michaelll]

Are you still at school, Michaelll? Or at university?

I study at university, second year. (My major is not English, I study law)

What kind of teachers are you talking about?

Every one! Almost every last one! I'm not kidding. When I was in high school they taught the same. Now I'm here, and new ones teach the same. And there are hundreds, hundreds of such examples on YouTube.

One such example, a video made by a qualified Ukrainian teacher of English. She's telling her audience that with "time markers" such as "from ... to ..." and "while" we should use the past continuous. When I tried to explain to her in the comment section that I sometimes hear native speakers use the past simple even in this case, she told me that only uneducated people do that (because "from 3 to 5 p.m." is a period - as she said). What's more, she tells her audience (in this and some other videos) that if you feel it's a process use the past continuous.

Here's another such example, this time with a Russian teacher of English.
This is a very popular YouTube channel of hers. She's taught English for many years. And she's written a lot of grammar books, and here's what one of her books says:

Here she listed "the signal words that help you to determine that you need to use (нужно использовать) past progressive". The signal words include "while", "from ... to/till ...", "the whole evening [day, night, etc.]".

She's selling this book for quite a high price. And a lot of people have bought it.

There are much more such examples on YouTube and everywhere else.

 

[jutfrank]

I see. Well, this is why it's important to choose your teachers carefully. Of course, if you're studying at an institution, you can't do that. I do sympathise.

Bad teaching can be worse than no teaching at all.

 

[Michaelll]

I see. Well, this is why it's important to choose your teachers carefully. Of course, if you're studying at an institution, you can't do that. I do sympathise.

Bad teaching can be worse than no teaching at all.

Having written what's above, I caught another such example. This time, I think, it's even more interesting. This teacher having found two examples of that kind (with "from 2005 to 2011" and "all morning") in a famous grammar book by Raymond Murphy, said (literally) "well this is for the entry level, those who have studied further know that since it is a process you shouldn't use the simple aspect here". You yourself can literally hear her say "process" several times - it's pronounced almost the same in Russian (she speaks Russian, though she's from Ukraine) (link to the exact moment).

 

[Michaelll]

Bad teaching can be worse than no teaching at all.

Are you sure it's bad teaching? I think they're right that "I fixed my car until 5 a.m." doesn't work, while the continuous one "I was fixing my car until 5 a.m." is fine. Same with the cooking dinner example provided by emsr2d2 in #2 of this thread.

 

[jutfrank]

Unfortunately, I can't understand Russian so I can't usefully comment.

Do you mean that the teacher there is saying the Terry worked in a bank from 2005 to 2011 sentence is wrong?

Are you sure it's bad teaching?

I was making a very general statement.

I think they're right that "I fixed my car until 5 a.m." doesn't work, while the continuous one "I was fixing my car until 5 a.m." is fine.

I obviously haven't been clear. The problem with both sentences is the ambiguity of the aspect of the verb fix. Does it necessarily have as part of its meaning the idea of accomplishment? The answer is unclear, which makes the sentences poor examples.

The continuous one sounds better to you because it's easier to interpret the verb fix as atelic than telic. That's because of the until phrase. If you use the past simple version, the grammatical aspect (the 'simple' part of the past simple) biases the listener towards a telic interpretation (which, by the way, is what I think Barque is driving at in post #12), which doesn't make sense given the until phrase. That's not to say that it necessarily means that the action of fixing is complete. So the past simple version is fine as long as you're interpreting the aspect in a telic way. It's a question of interpretation. This is why I keep repeating that you have to find examples that are unambiguous—otherwise you're going to run into confusion of grammatical and lexical aspect, as you have here.

When we use past simple clauses, there is a certain sense of completeness which this grammatical aspect expresses. This often clashes with the sense of completeness expressed by the lexical aspect of the verb itself. Does that make sense?

Look:

A: What did you do last night?
B: I fixed my car.

How are we supposed to interpret this? Did speaker B accomplish the entire task? How about this?:

A: What did you do last night?
B: I watched Netflix.

Did the speaker watch the entirety of the contents of the channel? How do you know? How about this?:

A: What did you do last night?
B: I read a book for an hour.

Is this any easier to interpret? If so, why? Are there clues in the context that help you?

To understand meaning is not only to understand subtle things like the telicity of verbs, but also to sense language in its context and in its universe of discourse, and also to apply your own experience and understanding of how the world works.

 

[Michaelll]

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

Why? How is anybody supposed to know that?

Because of the meaning of the verbs.

Therein lies the problem. You're about to see the entire thing. Please, read carefully.

The language I speak has a perfect and an imperfect forms of any verb. The imperfect form is neutral while the perfect form implies a certain(often the highest) degree of success.

To show you some examples, I'm going to use verbs with 'est' at the end in order to show you the difference in the verb forms.
I am aware English does not have such verbs and the verbs without 'est' may have another, different meaning.

These are neutral, we can say this just to show the activity/action. In English they can be followed by 'for + an amount of time'.
A: I insisted on going to the movies / that we go to the movies.
(we don't know whether 'they' went to the movies)
A: I taught my son how to play the piano.
(we don't know whether 'A' successfully/completely taught his son how to play the piano)
A: I learnt English at school.
(we don't know whether 'A' has any results of this activity)
A: I studied this article.
(again, we don't know if 'A' has any results of this activity)

These show successfully fulfilled actions (= results). In English they can be followed by 'in + an amount of time'.
A: I insistedest on going to the movies / that we go to the movies.
(we know for sure just from the phrase that 'they' did go to the movies)
A: I taughtest my son how to play the piano.
(we know for sure just from the phrase that 'A' successfully/completely taught his son how to play the piano)
A: I learntest English at school.
(we know for sure just from the phrase that 'A' has a great amount of knowledge about the English language, it IS extremely rare that anyone can say that)
A: I studiedest this article.
(we know for sure that A put enough time into the article so he now knows every detail of it)

For example, we can't say:

• I learntest English at school, but I still can't speak fluently.

It's just nonsense. It should be, "I learnt English at school,...".

A: Where do you work?
B: I'm an interpreter. I used to be a teacher. I taught(est) kids English. (we can't use 'taughtest' here, because maybe some of the kids you taught couldn't speak it).

A: What did you both do yesterday?
Son: We went to my grandmother's house in the village and my dad taught me (how) to drive.
(we don't know whether the son knows how to drive now)
/Son: We went to my grandmother's house in the village and my dad taughtest me (how) to drive.
(completely = not just an activity, but a fullfilled action, result, outcome)

One more example:
We defended our land. - Neutral, it's just means that someone else initiated the attack.
/We defendedest our land. - Successfully. We won. The attackers were/have been defeated.

And of course cases related to objects: books/pictures/movies/ships/cakes etc. etc.

A: What did you do yesterday after coming home?
B: I read a book.
/B: I readest a book.

A: What are you going to do tonight?
B: I'm going to paint a picture.
/B: I'm going to paintest a picture.

C: I write my book every day until I complete(writest) it. I wrote it yesterday and the day before and will do so today and tomorrow.
/D: He wrotest his third book last year.

By the way, I just realized that the best way for you to understand how the two verb forms work is by looking at this beautiful couple: 'to look for' and 'to find'.
I looked for my keys for 2 hours.
I looked for my keys in 2 hours.
I found my keys for 2 hours.
I found my keys in 2 hours.

English has the same thing! But unfortunately only with this activity (of looking for something).

So, now you see? In my native language we can even use 'ask for something' / 'ask somebody to do something' in the "successful way". So we literally have to learn the meaning of every English verb from scratch!

 

[jutfrank]

Thank you for that, Michaelll. It's very useful for me to understand more about how things works in Russian. I spend a lot of time trying to explain things to Russian speakers.

I understand how frustrating it must be for you, but I'd like you to know that you do seem to have a decent understanding of what is a very hard area, so don't be discouraged. As long as you can unlearn all the misleading and mistaken things you've been taught in the past, you'll be well on your way to learning in a more natural way.

 

[5jj]

A: I insisted on going to the movies / that we go to the movies.
(we don't know whether 'they' went to the movies)

They almost certainly did.

A: I taught my son how to play the piano.
(we don't know whether 'A' successfully/completely taught his son how to play the piano)

He almost certainly did.

A: I learnt English at school.
(we don't know whether 'A' has any results of this activity)

They almost certainly did.

A: I studied this article.
(again, we don't know if 'A' has any results of this activity)

They almost certainly did.


You are still reading too much into English tenses - see above.

 

[Michaelll]

A: I taught my son how to play the piano.
(we don't know whether 'A' successfully/completely taught his son how to play the piano)

They almost certainly did.

I just found this dialogue on YouTube:

A: How many years have you taught English?
B: Oh, I've taught English for eight years.
A: My friend was in your class for two months last year. You taught her English in the morning.

A: I insisted on going to the movies / that we go to the movies.
(we don't know whether 'they' went to the movies)

They almost certainly did.

Hmm... So, if they didn't go, I should use "tried to insist" instead of "insisted", right?

In other words, is it correct to say, "She insisted on coming with us, but I had to say no"?

 

[5jj]

I just found this dialogue on YouTube:

A: How many years have you taught English?
B: Oh, I've taught English for eight years.
A: My friend was in your class for two months last year. You taught her English in the morning.

That last sentence is not very natural.

 

[Michaelll]

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.

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.

Neither is a good example for you to work with.

Earlier in this thread you said that these two "I fixed my car until 5 a.m." and "I cooked dinner till you came home" are bad examples (because the words 'cooked' and 'fixed' carry a connotation of completeness). OK, I get it. It makes sense to me. But, why then is this sentence "Barry prepared lunch while Sally wrote a report" even written here?? Maybe those two are bad for you just because they're mine. So far, this is the only logical explanation.

If this sentence (from the link above) is another poor one, then I should say that the conclusion I came to during this thread is that in order to use those signal words 1) "from ... to/till ...", 2) "until", 3) "while" (two simultaneous actions, not contrast)" and 4) "for [an amount of time]" (while expressing the duration of the actual action "It rained for two days", not the duration of the result of the action "He got banned for two years") in the past simple, the verb has to have the atelic meaning. If the verb doesn't have the atelic meaning, but the idea has to be translated, we should use the past continuous (as emsr2d2 did in #2 of this thread). So, the most important question is how to define if a verb has the atelic meaning, or only the telic one.

I read a book until I fell asleep. (doesn't have to be in the past continuous)
I fixed my car until 5 a.m. (should be "I was fixing my car until 5 a.m." )
I cooked dinner till you came home. (should be "I was cooking dinner till you came home." )

Barry prepared lunch while Sally wrote a report. (?)
Sally wrote a report until she fell asleep. (?)
He got ready while she cooked dinner. (?)
(Are these three fine?)

 

[jutfrank]

Maybe those two are bad for you just because they're mine.

They're not bad for me, they're bad for you. A sentence is a bad example if it doesn't show clearly to you what it's meant to show. You have to work with sentences that show you something, not with sentences that confuse you.

So, the most important question is how to define if a verb has the atelic meaning, or only the telic one.

Interpret, yes, not define.

I fixed my car until 5 a.m.

Who said this was wrong? I suggested you don't use this poor example.

I cooked dinner till you came home.

This is not wrong, Michaelll. Why do you think it is?

Barry prepared lunch while Sally wrote a report. (?)
Sally wrote a report until she fell asleep. (?)
He got ready while she cooked dinner. (?)
(Are these three fine?)

In the right context, and with the right interpretation, yes.

I noticed you didn't like my post #27. Did you understand what I was trying to say to you there?

 

[Barque]

But, why then is this sentence "Barry prepared lunch while Sally wrote a report" even written here??

This sentence works. I don't think anyone's objected to it.

(should be "I was cooking dinner till you came home." )

This is possible but isn't a good example because it seems as if the speaker hadn't finished cooking dinner but stopped cooking when the other person came home. If he/she did stop, that's fine and the sentence works, but why would you stop if you haven't finished? Sentences don't depend just on grammar and semantics. They also have to be realistic.

It's possible of course. Maybe the speaker means "I was cooking dinner till you came home. Then I took a break and went and put my feet up for some time and then went back into the kitchen and finished cooking". But that's a little unlikely.

 

[Michaelll]

They're not bad for me, they're bad for you. A sentence is a bad example if it doesn't show clearly to you what it's meant to show. You have to work with sentences that show you something, not with sentences that confuse you.

Why do you think they're bad for me? I'm just trying to understand how to translate these ideas when I need to.

Who said this was wrong? I suggested you don't use this poor example.

This is not wrong, Michaelll. Why do you think it is?

I'm sorry, but this is giving me headaches. First I was told these sentences were poor, now I'm being told they're not wrong. I don't understand anything. First I was told 'those verbs carry a connotation of completeness'

neither "I fixed my car until 5 am" nor "I cooked dinner till you came home" sound natural to me.

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.

so that's not natural to use them in the past simple with 'until' (which made sense to me), now I'm being told it's fine. To put it very mildly, I have no idea what is going on here.

I noticed you didn't like my post #27. Did you understand what I was trying to say to you there?

I'm sorry that I didn't, I've put the like now.
I've been trying to read every reply of yours very carefully, but it seems to me now I don't understand anything.

 

[Barque]

so that's not natural to use them in the past simple with 'until' (which made sense to me), now I'm being told it's fine. To put it very mildly, I have no idea what is going on here.

You've misread my post. I have not said anything different from earlier.

now I'm being told it's fine.

What are you talking about? I didn't say they're fine.

"Fixed" doesn't work with "until".
"Cooked dinner" doesn't work with "until".

There are some things that will take time to learn.

 

[jutfrank]

Why do you think they're bad for me? I'm just trying to understand how to translate these ideas when I need to.

If you don't understand them, they don't work. That means they're bad/poor. Example sentences are meant to be understood.

I'm sorry, but this is giving me headaches. First I was told these sentences were poor, now I'm being told they're not wrong. I don't understand anything.

By 'bad' and 'poor', I mean they don't work well as examples. I don't mean the language contained is wrong.

First I was told 'those verbs carry a connotation of completeness'

Yes, generally speaking, the past simple carries a sense of completeness, but in language in use, not necessarily so. It depends on context and interpretation. This is what you're still not getting.

To put it very mildly, I have no idea what is going on here.

Okay, don't despair. I'm willing to work a bit harder because I do think you're getting somewhere. Tell me precisely what you don't understand.

I think your problem right now is that you're looking too much at grammatical aspect for meaning. Yes, grammatical aspect is important, but so is lexical aspect, and the context, and your prior understanding of how the world works.

 

[Barque]

but in language in use, not necessarily so. It depends on context and interpretation.

Yes, grammatical aspect is important, but so is lexical aspect, and the context, and your prior understanding of how the world works.

Michael, read these statements again and again.

 

[Barque]

Another thing that might be confusing you is that Jutfrank and I are possibly not completely agreed on what sentences work and what don't. That sort of thing is common.

Jutfrank possibly has an advantage over me and is more likely to be correct than me as he's actually grown up in a native-English speaking country, unlike me, but even native English speakers don't always agree on what's right.

I'd suggest that you look at the broad principles behind what we're saying.