Yesterday, my husband [cooked] (or) [was cooking] dinner from 6 to 8 o'clock.

[Marika33]

Hello everyone! I would want to know which option I should use in these sentences, past simple or past continuous.
(I want to be sure how to translate such ideas, which include periods of time, from my native language).
I wrote some sentences, please, tell me which of the two tenses I should use in them.

1. My grandfather started learning French in 1940. He stopped learning French in 1950. He [learned] [was learning] French from 1940 to 1950.

2. I continued reading this book yesterday at 2 o'clock. I stopped reading it after an hour, at 3 o'clock, then I went to be reading another book. I [read] [was reading] this book yesterday from 2 to 3 o'clock.

3. Last evening, my daughter started her homework at 18:00. She stopped doing it at 18:30, and then she went out with friends. My daughter [did] [was doing] her homework from 18:00 to 18:30.

4. On my birthday, my husband started cooking a special dinner at 18:00. He finished it at 20:00. My husband [cooked] [was cooking] dinner from 6 to 8 o'clock.

I've learned that the past continuous means you were in the middle of doing something, so I suppose it should be the past continuous, because, he was in the middle of cooking a special dinner from 18:00 to 20:00 (with an error of a few minutes).

I hope you will help me. Thank you!

 

[emsr2d2]

Hello everyone! I would want like to know which option I should use in these sentences - past simple or past continuous.
(I want to be sure how to translate such ideas, which include periods of time, from my native language.)
I wrote some sentences. Please no comma here tell me which of the two tenses I should use in them.

1. My grandfather started learning studying French in 1940. He stopped learning studying French in 1950. He [learned] [was learning] studied French from 1940 to 1950.

2. I continued reading this book yesterday at 2 o'clock. I stopped reading it after an hour, at 3 o'clock, then I went to be started reading another book. I [read] [was reading] this the first book yesterday from 2 to 3 o'clock. Both tenses are possible.

3. Last Yesterday evening, my daughter started her homework at 18:00. She stopped doing it at 18:30, and then she went out with friends. My daughter [did] [was doing] her homework from 18:00 to 18:30. Both tenses are possible.

4. On my birthday, my husband started cooking a special dinner at 18:00. He finished it at 20:00. My husband [cooked] [was cooking] dinner from 6 to 8 o'clock. Don't mix up the 24-hour clock (sometimes called military time) with the standard 12-hour clock in one piece of writing.

I've learned that the past continuous means you were in the middle of doing something, so I suppose it should be the past continuous, because, he was in the middle of cooking a special dinner from 18:00 to 20:00 (with an error of a few minutes).

I hope you will help me. Thank you! Unnecessary. We know you need help and you can thank us afterwards, by adding the "Thanks" icon to any response you find useful.

 

[Marika33]

Thank you, emsr2d2.

May I ask you, why in 2 and 3, both tenses are possible, but in the 4 only the past continuous is possible (you've crossed the past simple)?
And if I may, I would like to know what should make me choose the past simple or the past continuous in 2 and 3 (given the fact that both are possible).

 

[emsr2d2]

Mainly because "cooked" implies a completed action.

He cooked dinner last night.
He cooked dinner yesterday.

I would be more likely to use in the present continuous ...

I can't answer the phone now. I'm cooking dinner.

... or in the past continuous when relating the same story later ...

I couldn't answer the phone because I was cooking dinner.

 

[Marika33]

Mainly because "cooked" implies a completed action.

I thought "read" and "did" also imply a completed action, but you said that both tenses are possible in 2 and 3.

2. I read this book yesterday from 2 to 3 o'clock.
3. My daughter did her homework from 18:00 to 18:30.
4. My husband cooked dinner from 6 to 8 o'clock.

Why is that?

 

[Marika33]

I would be more likely to use in the present continuous ...

I can't answer the phone now. I'm cooking dinner.

... or in the past continuous when relating the same story later ...

I couldn't answer the phone because I was cooking dinner.

I think I can do the same with the verbs from sentence 2 and 3.

I can't answer the phone now. I'm reading a book / I'm doing my homework.

I couldn't answer the phone because I was reading a book / I was doing my homework.

But you still said that both tenses are possible with these verbs (in sentences 2 and 3), while only the past continuous is possible in sentence 4. Why?

 

[Tarheel]

"My husband cooked dinner from six till eight" is fine with me.

 

[Marika33]

"My husband cooked dinner from six till eight" is fine with me.

Thank you!

If both tenses are fine in 2, 3 and 4, which tense should I choose "by default"?
I mean, what makes you choose one over the other in sentences including periods of time, or can you just use either one with no actual difference?

2. I read / was reading this book yesterday from 2 to 3 o'clock.
3. My daughter did / was doing her homework from 18:00 to 18:30.
4. My husband cooked / was cooking dinner from 6 to 8 o'clock.

 

[Tarheel]

Simple past is the default tense.

I read this book from two to three. (We don't normally say "o'clock" when it's clear we are talking about time.)

My daughter did her homework from six to six-thirty. (Please don't mix the two methods. Choose one and stick with it.)

My husband cooked dinner from six till eight.

You haven't presented a reason to use past continuous.

 

[jutfrank]

If both tenses are fine in 2, 3 and 4, which tense should I choose "by default"?

First of all, this isn't a good way to think about aspect. The choice of aspect comes from how a speaker views the action in relation to its time frame.

I mean, what makes you choose one over the other in sentences including periods of time, or can you just use either one with no actual difference?

If there's a difference in aspect, then for me that counts as a difference in meaning. You choose the tense/aspect that best expresses what you mean, and which presents what you want to say usefully .

To give you something practical to work with, I suggest you learn to associate the simple aspect with when you want to make simple statements of fact. Here's an example:

My grandfather studied French in Paris from 1940 to 1950.

By using the past simple, you're presenting this as a mere fact. It doesn't matter that there's a period of time for which it is true.

The past continuous, by contrast, can be associated with when you want to present something as situational context of a point or event in past time. Here's an example:

My grandfather was studying French at the Sorbonne when France declared war on Germany.

Here's another example:

A: Where were you at midnight last night?
B: I was watching television at home with my wife.

Person B is explaining the situation at the time in question.

 

[Marika33]

By using the past simple, you're presenting this as a mere fact. It doesn't matter that there's a period of time for which it is true.

I've learned that the past continuous means you were in the middle of doing something, so I thought that periods of time should be in the past continuous, because she/he was in the middle of doing that. For example, "He was cooking dinner from six till eight". = He was in the middle of cooking dinner from six till eight. I'm surprised to know I was wrong.

The past continuous, by contrast, can be associated with when you want to present something as situational context of a point or event in past time. Here's an example:

My grandfather was studying French at the Sorbonne when France declared war on Germany.

Here's another example:

A: Where were you at midnight last night?
B: I was watching television at home with my wife.

Person B is explaining the situation at the time in question.

Yes, I know this use of the past continuous. It's pretty simple, and it doesn't present any difficulty.

When he called me yesterday, I was reading a book. (= I had started reading the book, but had not finished doing it by the time he called me).

But I've sometimes heard native speakers use the future continuous with no such reason, or is it different with future?

 

[Tarheel]

@Marika33 Do you have a future continuous example?

 

[Marika33]

@Marika33 Do you have a future continuous example?

1. The professor will be speaking from 3 to 4 p.m.
2. We will be watching horror movies from dusk until dawn.
3. I will be working as a sales assistant from October to December.

Just let's compare it with the past:
1. The professor was speaking from 3 to 4 p.m. / The professor spoke from 3 to 4 p.m.
2. We were watching horror movies from dusk until dawn. / We watched horror movies from dusk until dawn.
3. I was working as a sales assistant from October to December. / I worked as a sales assistant from October to December.

You haven't presented a reason to use past continuous.

That's why I'm wondering if it's different with the future.

 

[jutfrank]

I've learned that the past continuous means you were in the middle of doing something, so I thought that periods of time should be in the past continuous, because she/he was in the middle of doing that. For example, "He was cooking dinner from six till eight". = He was in the middle of cooking dinner from six till eight. I'm surprised to know I was wrong.

I wouldn't say that's wrong. It's more precise to say that the continuous aspect places the action in progress, but I think that's what you're saying. It doesn't mean that every time you mention a time period that you must use the past continuous. You can use time periods with any tense:

I work from 9.00 to 5.00.
I worked from 9.00 to 5.00.
I am working from 9.00 to 5.00.
I have worked from 9.00 to 5.00.
I have been working from 9.00 to 5.00.
I will work from 9.00 to 5.00.
I will have worked from 9.00 to 5.00.
I will be working from 9.00 to 5.00.

The time period is the same in all sentences. The difference is the tense/aspect.

 

[Tarheel]

1. The professor will be speaking from 3 to 4 p.m.
2. We will be watching horror movies from dusk until dawn.
3. I will be working as a sales assistant from October to December.

Those are all fine. With the others I prefer simple past. (Opinions may differ.)

 

[jutfrank]

With the others I prefer simple past. (Opinions may differ.)

I fear this comment may confuse learners. It is not a matter of preference. It's a difference in meaning (or aspect).

 

[Tarheel]

Well, sometimes people do disagree with me. (They are always wrong, but it happens. )

 

[Marika33]

Those are all fine. With the others I prefer simple past. (Opinions may differ.)

May I, please, ask you why is it fine to use the future continuous without any other action that happens at that time, but not the past continuous?

The professor will be giving a special lecture today. = Works on its own (doesn't require a specific time, or another action that will happen when the professor will be giving a lecture).

The professor was giving a special lecture yesterday. = Doesn't work on its own unless you specify a certain time in the past or bring up another action that happened when the professor was giving a lecture.

Why is that?

 

[Tarheel]

You responded too quickly.

I decided that I had misread your post and deleted mine.

Yes, there is a difference. ( But you already know that.) As for the "why" question, well, you know the important thing. With the past continuous sentence if you leave out that important information the response might be, "What else?"

Hm.

 

[Marika33]

Yes, there is a difference. ( But you already know that.) As for the "why" question, well, you know the important thing. With the past continuous sentence if you leave out that important information the response might be, "What else?"

Hm.

Thanks!

So it gets that the past continuous doesn't work on its own (without mentioning a specific point in time in the past [at 1:15] or without any other action [when he called me] that happened during that time), while the future continuous does work on its own? Is my understanding correct?