Wolfy has run/ran across the room

[EngLearner]

John has a dog named Wolfy. He runs across the room and knocks over John's mother's favorite vase. Five minutes later, John's mother calls John, and the dialog below takes place between them.

John's mother: "How are you, John?"
John: "I'm fine, but there's something I need to tell you."
John's mother: "What is it?"

Then John says one of the sentences below to his mother (the vase is still lying on the floor when he says this).

1. Wolfy has run across the room and knocked over your favorite vase.
2. Wolfy ran across the room and has knocked over your favorite vase.
3. Wolfy ran across the room and knocked over your favorite vase.

Are the above sentences correct in the context given? I'm wondering about the tenses in bold. Thanks in advance.

 

[emsr2d2]

I'd use sentence 3. It's a simple statement of fact. Two things happened, both in the past.

 

[5jj]

I think no. 1 is possible if you read it as

1. Wolfy has run across the room and (has) knocked over your favorite vase.

 

[EngLearner]

If they're both correct in this case, what does sentence #1 say that sentence #3 doesn't and vice versa? Is it possible to explain the difference somehow? Thanks in advance.

 

[Skrej]

I just recently mentioned this in another thread, but it's best to maintain your verb tense, unless there's a clear need to shift tenses. In these examples, there are no compelling reasons to shift tenses.

Note that both the responses you've received prior to this post are suggesting the same thing.

 

[Barque]

Are the above sentences correct in the context given?

I don't see why John needs to mention that the dog ran across the room. In a real life conversation, I doubt he would. If he did, I'd expect "Wolfy was running across the room and he knocked over your vase".

Wolfy knocked over your favourite vase.
Wolfy's knocked over your favourite vase.

 

[5jj]

Mentioning the running is not incorrect.

 

[EngLearner]

1. Wolfy has run across the room and (has) knocked over your favorite vase.

3. Wolfy ran across the room and knocked over your favorite vase.

Would it be correct to say that sentence #1 is possible in the context of post #1, but less natural than sentence #3?

 

[5jj]

#1 is not less natural.

#3 is probably more likely; as emsr2d2 said, It's a simple statement of fact. Two things happened, both in the past.

 

[Barque]

Would it be correct to say that sentence #1 is possible in the context of post #1, but less natural than sentence #3?

I can't think of a reason to say, in this context, "Wolfy has run across the room and knocked your vase over". The present perfect doesn't seem right to my ears here.

 

[5jj]

I can't think of a reason to say, in this context, "Wolfy has run across the room and knocked your vase over".

It's OK if this happened immediately before the words were spoken.

 

[Barque]

Oh I agree the tense would fit the situation. But the words don't. It just seems an odd thing to say.

Wolfy could just as well have walked across the room and knocked it over. Would you say "Wolfy has just walked acros the room and knocked a vase over"?

I could understand "was running around the room". Then there's a connection. When a dog has been running around, there's a chance it could knock something over by accident. But "has run across" sounds almost as if it deliberately ran across the room to knock the vase over.

 

[EngLearner]

4. Wolfy has been running around the room and has knocked over your favorite vase.

Is version #4 appropriate in the context of post #1?

 

[5jj]

It's possible.