progressive, perfect and perfect progressive without time words

Dear teachers,

Tense 'markers' such as for, since, already, just etc normally help us choose a tense. If we don't have them, there can be some ambiguity.

For example,

When I came, they (drink) champagne.

I've come up with three alternatives.

When I came, they were drinking champagne ( they were in the process of drinking)

When I came, they had been drinking champagne (I saw half-empty bottles, the people were slightly drunk)

When I came, they had drunk the champagne (the bottles were empty, a guy sleeping under the table)

Are the 2nd and 3rd alternatives possible?

Thank you in advance.

Verona_82 said:

Dear teachers,

Tense 'markers' such as for, since, already, just etc normally help us choose a tense. If we don't have them, there can be some ambiguity.

For example,

When I came, they (drink) champagne.

I've come up with three alternatives.

When I came, they were drinking champagne ( they were in the process of drinking)

When I came, they had been drinking champagne (I saw half-empty bottles, the people were slightly drunk)

When I came, they had drunk the champagne (the bottles were empty, a guy sleeping under the table)

Are the 2nd and 3rd alternatives possible?

Thank you in advance.

Click to expand...

"Arrived" is much better than "came" in this situation.
2. is possible. I'd prefer, "When I arrived, I noticed they'd been drinking champagne." The fact is that they had been drinking champagne before your arrival, not when you arrived. "Before I arrived, they had been drinking ..." is also good.
3. The same argument goes for this sentence. "They had drunk all the champagne before I arrived." or "By the time I arrived, they had drunk ..."

Thank you!
"Before' and 'by the time' denitely make things simpler, but I'm trying to understand that nuance with 'when'.

When the phone rang, I had gone to bed.
When I came home, water had been leaking through the roof.

I hardly see any difference between these sentences and the champagne ones :-|

Verona_82 said:

When the phone rang, I had gone to bed.
When I came home, water had been leaking through the roof.

Click to expand...

Frankly speaking I would use Past Simple in sentence #1 because this Tense seems more natural to me in such context:

When the phone rang, I was doing .... (something).

If you want to use Past Perfect it would be better to insert some word like "already":

When the phone rang, I had already gone to bed.

This is what I think about all this situation. I don't consider the original sentence to be wrong, but in my opinion some specific words are needed ti use Past Perfect.

Sentence #2 allows both Past Perfect Continuous and Past Simple.

Well, I took them from an Eglish grammar.

They also give the following examples:

When I last went to Moscow, they had been renovating St Basil's Cathedral.

When I met Simon and Pat, they had been riding.


And there're no time adverbs. It's mind-boggling.

Verona_82 said:

Well, I took them from an Eglish grammar.

They also give the following examples:

When I last went to Moscow, they had been renovating St Basil's Cathedral.

When I met Simon and Pat, they had been riding.


And there're no time adverbs. It's mind-boggling.

Click to expand...

Your sentences do make sense even without adverbs, but it's still strange to me to see them written this way. If I were to choose a proper Tense to use, I would have chosen Past Continuous in both examples. Past Continuous is the simplest Past Tense emphasizing duration and hence it's the first Tense that comes to my mind when it's necessary to say that something lasts for a long time. Past perfect Continuous would be indisputable if there were words like "for" (in sentence #1, e.g., "for two months" and sentence #2, e.g. "for 3 hours" or "the whole morning").

I'm afraid I cannot agree with you.
The Past Progressive implies certain duration, but it does not emphasize it. It just says that something was in progress.
You can use 'for' with it to put some emphasis on duration.
I was working on my computer for four hours yesterday.

Verona: Tense 'markers' such as for, since, already, just etc normally help us choose a tense. If we don't have them, there can be some ambiguity

When I came, they were drinking champagne ( they were in the process of drinking)
When I came, they had been drinking champagne (I saw half-empty bottles, the people were slightly drunk)
When I came, they had drunk the champagne (the bottles were empty, a guy sleeping under the table)

One of the problems here is that some course books and grammars give the impression that there is always a ‘right’ answer’, and always only one correct tense. Provided we recognise that, the problem largely disappears. We don’t have to wonder whether tense A is more or less appropriate than tense B – they are probably both appropriate for the situation as their speakers see it.

Raymott (Post #2) )"Arrived" is much better than "came" in this situation. I agree.
2. is possible. I'd prefer, "When I arrived, I noticed they'd been drinking champagne." The fact is that they had been drinking champagne before your arrival, not when you arrived. "Before I arrived, they had been drinking ..." is also good. I don’t agree. That is not to say that Raymott is wrong, but simply that he would use a different construction than I

3. The same argument goes for this sentence. "They had drunk all the champagne before I arrived." or "By the time I arrived, they had drunk ...". Once again, I don’t agree.

Verona (Post #3): [FONT=&quot]When the phone rang, I had gone to bed.
When I came home, water had been leaking through the roof.

I hardly see any difference between these sentences and the champagne ones Neither do I. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Milan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (Post #4) Frankly speaking I would use Past Simple in sentence #1 [When the phone rang, I had gone to bed.] because this Tense seems more natural to me in such context:
When the phone rang, I was doing .... (something). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But that is a different situation. In Verona’s example, the going to bed preceded the ringing of the phone.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

If you want to use Past Perfect it would be better to insert some word like "already":
When the phone rang, I had already gone to bed. You may feel ‘already’ is necessary, I don’t. Use it if you wish, but don’t insist on it.

Sentence #2 [When I came home, water had been leaking through the roof.]allows both Past Perfect Continuous and Past Simple. It does indeed, but there is a slight difference in meaning.[/FONT]
Verona (Post #5) When I last went to Moscow, they had been renovating St Basil's Cathedral.
When I met Simon and Pat, they had been riding.


And there're no time adverbs. It's mind-boggling.
There is no need for time adverbs (though ‘last’ looks suspiciously like one to me). The situations in both sentences are clearly located in the past.

Milan 6. Your sentences do make sense even without adverbs, but it's still strange to me to see them written this way.
Not strange to me.

If I were to choose a proper Tense to use, I would have chosen Past Continuous in both examples.
The past Continuous is perfectly acceptable, but it suggests a different view of the situation.

Verona_82 said:

I'm afraid I cannot agree with you.
The Past Progressive implies certain duration, but it does not emphasize it. It just says that something was in progress.
You can use 'for' with it to put some emphasis on duration.
I was working on my computer for four hours yesterday.

Click to expand...

Much depends on what how imagine "emphasizing". Past Progressive does emphasize duration, but the extent of emphasis perceived differently by different people.

I think "I was working on my computer for four hours yesterday" isn't the best choice. Past Progressive is more often used when one action was interrupted by another or when two long actions were occurring simultaneously:

I was talking on the phone when Fred came
I was repairing a washing machine while my mother was cooking in the kitchen

In your sentence with "computer" there is duration expressed by "four hours". But the sentence will be fine with Past Simple:

"I worked on my computer for four hours yesterday"

fivejedjon said:

[FONT=&quot]
Sentence #2 [When I came home, water had been leaking through the roof.]allows both Past Perfect Continuous and Past Simple. It does indeed, but there is a slight difference in meaning.[/FONT]

Click to expand...

Please explain how you perceive this difference

fivejedjon said:

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]If I were to choose a proper Tense to use, I would have chosen Past Continuous in both examples.
The past Continuous is perfectly acceptable, but it suggests a different view of the situation.

Click to expand...

Which view are you talking about here?

milan2003_07 said:

Please explain how you perceive this difference
Which view are you talking about here?

Click to expand...

I'll be back tomorrow, milan. I think I have written enough on this today.

fivejedjon said:

I'll be back tomorrow, milan. I think I have written enough on this today.

Click to expand...

I'll be waiting for you

When I came home, water had been leaking through the roof.
The speaker notes that the water had begun to leak through the roof before his/her arrival home. The leaking had continued for some unspecified length of time, possibly, but not necessarily, up to (and even beyond) the moment of the arrival.

When I came home, water was leaking through the roof.
The speaker notes merely the flow of water at the moment of arrival.

fivejedjon said:

When I came home, water had been leaking through the roof.
The speaker notes that the water had begun to leak through the roof before his/her arrival home.

Click to expand...

I never said this was wrong - just that I thought phrasing it differently was preferable (as I still do).
As I said, and as 5JJ clarifies, the sentence indicates: "When I came home, I noted that the water had been leaking through the roof."

But, there's no need to be bamboozled finding grammatical but awkwardly-phrased sentences in a grammar book. The sentence is grammatical. Stylistic issues are a different topic, and vary by location and individual. If 5jj says this is normal where he lives, I'm not about to say that it's not right.

What Raymott said there is worth repeating:

Raymott said:

[...] there's no need to be bamboozled finding grammatical but awkwardly-phrased sentences in a grammar book. The sentence is grammatical. Stylistic issues are a different topic, and vary by location and individual.

Click to expand...

Very often people write in and ask, "which is better?" Very often there is no clear answer. Apart from the location and individual differences noted by Raymott, individuals are not consistent, I might use one tense/aspect form to describe a situation on one occasion; on another apparently identical occasion I might use a different tense/aspect.

Course books often highlight differences between forms in an effort to clarify matters for students. In real life, there may be little significant difference between several forms in certain situations.

I think it's also worth repeating one of my previous posts, with one word added: One of the problems here is that some course books and grammars give the incorrect impression that there is always a ‘right’ answer’, and always only one correct tense. Provided we recognise that, the problem largely disappears. We don’t have to wonder whether tense A is more or less appropriate than tense B – they are probably both appropriate for the situation as their speakers see it.

fivejedjon said:

What Raymott said there is worth repeating:
One of the problems here is that some course books and grammars give the incorrect impression that there is always a ‘right’ answer’, and always only one correct tense. Provided we recognise that, the problem largely disappears. We don’t have to wonder whether tense A is more or less appropriate than tense B – they are probably both appropriate for the situation as their speakers see it.

Click to expand...

You would be much surprised, to put if mildly, if you looked through a grammar or a coursebook written by my compatriots. You'd find out that your grammar rules are strict, especially when it comes to tenses From authors' point of view, there is -with some minor exceptions - always one correct answer, and the potential existense of other ones is simply out of the quesion! I gave up using them at all, but it had definitely put its stamp. I remember I was really astonished when I saw two alternative answers in the key section of some English coursebook, and it was much later when I realized they shouldn't be blindly trusted either.

One of the things the web makes very clear is that there is almost never a single correct answer whatever the question. ;-)