past progressive+the exact time defenition possible?

[ostap77]

"When I came home they had already been kicking this issue around for half an hour."

OR

"When I came home they were like already kicking this issue around for half an hour."

Could I use the past progressive with the exact time dfenition in an informal conversation?

 

[Johnson_F]

"When I came home they had already been kicking this issue around for half an hour." YES

OR

"When I came home they were like already kicking this issue around for half an hour." NO

Could I use the past progressive with the exact time definition in an informal conversation?

I do not understand exactly what you mean in your last question.

 

[susiedqq]

"When I came home they had already been kicking this issue around for half an hour."

Perfect!
It shows that they were having a half hour discussion, then you walked into the room.

PS Avoid using "like" - as in "they were, like, already talking . . ."

 

[bhaisahab]

"When I came home they had already been kicking this issue around for half an hour."

OR

"When I came home they were like already kicking this issue around for half an hour."

Could I use the past progressive with the exact time dfenition in an informal conversation?

In BrE the first one is correct. The second is incorrect.

 

[ostap77]

"When I came home they had already been kicking this issue around for half an hour."

Perfect!
It shows that they were having a half hour discussion, then you walked into the room.

PS Avoid using "like" - as in "they were, like, already talking . . ."

The second one is not possible? Perfect! refers to the first sentence or second one?

 

[e2e4]

/A learner/

"When I came home they had already been kicking this issue around for half an hour."

OR

"When I came home they were like already kicking this issue around for half an hour."

Could I use the past progressive with the exact time definition in an informal conversation?

In your second sentence, do you maybe want to tell this

When I came home they looked like they had already been kicking this issue around for half an hour.

 

[ostap77]

/A learner/


In your second sentence, do you maybe want to tell this

When I came home they looked like they had already been kicking this issue around for half an hour.

The thing is that sometimes I hear people saying things that are not totally grammatically accurate " She was going out with Jack for a couple of months before she met Dave." I just want to know if it's unaducated or informal way of speaking.

 

[e2e4]

/A learner/

The thing is that sometimes I hear people saying things that are not totally grammatically accurate " She was going out with Jack for a couple of months before she met Dave." I just want to know if it's unaducated or informal way of speaking.

Not correct for me.

"when" instead of "before" would work by some way.

 

[Tdol]

The thing is that sometimes I hear people saying things that are not totally grammatically accurate " She was going out with Jack for a couple of months before she met Dave." I just want to know if it's unaducated or informal way of speaking.

It's the kind of thing you will hear some people using in colloquial speech. When speaking, we often don't follow the conventional rules of grammar- we make mistakes, say things less formally, etc. You could call it colloquial, non-standard, or maybe informal; I'm not a fan of the term uneducated.

 

[Johnson_F]

" She was going out with Jack for a couple of months before she met Dave.

I do not even believe that it is 'incorrect'.
The past simple is far more common to talk about an uninterrupted situation that is finished, but the speaker may choose the 'limited duration' implications of the past continuous.

Unlike e2e4, 'when' does not work for me in this utterance. Because the idea of interruption is more strongly implied with 'when',, only the past perfect continuous seems natural. For the same reason, your original utterance is unacceptable, IMO:

"[STRIKE]When I came home they were like already kicking this issue around for half an hour.[/STRIKE]"

 

[ostap77]

" She was going out with Jack for a couple of months before she met Dave.

I do not even believe that it is 'incorrect'.
The past simple is far more common to talk about an uninterrupted situation that is finished, but the speaker may choose the 'limited duration' implications of the past continuous.

Unlike e2e4, 'when' does not work for me in this utterance. Because the idea of interruption is more strongly implied with 'when',, only the past perfect continuous seems natural. For the same reason, your original utterance is unacceptable, IMO:

"[STRIKE]When I came home they were like already kicking this issue around for half an hour.[/STRIKE]"

1)"When I came home they were alredy kicking this issue around for half an hour." Doesn't "before" interupts action as well?

If we slightly rearange the sentences and put it like this 2) "I came home. They were already kicking it around for half an hour."?

The is that prescribed grammar suggests the past perfect progressive with "half an hour", "thirty minutes"???

 

[e2e4]

" She was going out with Jack for a couple of months "when" she met Dave. ("when" is put by e2e4)

Unlike e2e4, 'when' does not work for me in this utterance. Because the idea of interruption is more strongly implied with 'when',, only the past perfect continuous seems natural.

Are you sure she couldn't also continue going out with both or interchangeably, actually. Nowadays nothing's the same as it had been before the sexual revolution, right?

I said that "when" would work by some way. It means in some special cases.

 

[ostap77]

Are you sure she couldn't also continue going out with both or interchangeably, actually. Nowadays nothing's the same as it had been before the sexual revolution, right?

I said that "when" would work by some way. It means in some special cases.

If you look at my original version there is "when". You are not the first who did that. If you feel like asking your questions, do create your own thread!!!!

 

[ostap77]

1)"When I came home they were alredy kicking this issue around for half an hour." Doesn't "before" interupts action as well?

If we slightly rearange the sentences and put it like this 2) "I came home. They were already kicking it around for half an hour."?

The is that prescribed grammar suggests the past perfect progressive with "half an hour", "thirty minutes"???

I would appreciate you answer to ny question. Please?

E2e4 just gets carried away. Stick to the question!!!

 

[e2e4]

/A learner/

1)"When I came home they were alredy kicking this issue around for half an hour." Doesn't "before" interupts action as well?

If we slightly rearange the sentences and put it like this 2) "I came home. They were already kicking it around for half an hour."?

The is that prescribed grammar suggests the past perfect progressive with "half an hour", "thirty minutes"???

At this moment of speaking, (not in the past) the present perfect continuous tell us about the fact that

they have been kicking this issue around for half an hour.

If I cut in (now) they will either stop or continue. But there is no time distance between their kicking around and my cut in.

If I say, 'They have kicked around this issue for half an hour.', it means that they have done it in the past. When? You can't make the right conclusion from that sentence. But what for sure is, is that I can't cut in at the moment of my speaking even if I say, "They have just kicked around this issue for half an hour." (I am able to cut in if I came just a bit earlier.)

The same is with the past perfect continuous used for an action or event that started to happen in the deep past.

They had been kicking this issue around for half an hour when I (did really) cut in.

They probably continued their kicking around. It is possible that the action be continued at the moment of my cut in in the past.

But if I say

"They had kicked this issue around for two hours before I came."

it means, for me of course, as I am not a teacher, that they had stopped before I came. There is a time distance between their kicking around and my coming. (I couldn't have cut in actually)

"They had just kicked this issue around for two hours before I came in." doesn't mean that they stopped because I came in. The time delay, mentioned, is reduced almost to zero. Please notice that I have said almost to zero and not to zero. There is always a time distance even infinitesimally small.


In addition

"They were talking for two hours when I came." is not possible. (the past perfect continuous ought to be used)

But

"They were talking when I came." is possible, for me, a learner. (No time limits for the past continuous tense)

This is how I see the matter. (At the moment.;-))

P.S. I was wrong when I said that I would accept using the past continuous tense instead of the past perfect continuous in some circumstances and by some way.

 

[e2e4]

/A learner/

I would appreciate you answer to ny question. Please?

E2e4 just gets carried away. Stick to the question!!!:multi::multi::multi:

1)"When I came home they were alredy kicking this issue around for half an hour." Doesn't "before" interupts action as well? I see no any "before" in the first sentence. Anyway "before" doesn't interrupt the action. The action had been interrupted by some other reason in the deep past before you came in.
The sentence is not correct. Must be, "When I came home they had already been kicking this issue around for half an hour."

If we slightly rearrange the sentences and put it like this 2) "I came home. They were already kicking it around for half an hour."?The whole lotta wrong.
I came home. They had already kicked it around for half an hour. (before I came)

I came home. They had already been kicking it around for half an hour. (you are now (in the past) able to cut in.

The is that prescribed grammar suggests the past perfect progressive with "half an hour", "thirty minutes"??? I don't know for prescribed grammar but if you ask my opinion it is,"Yes!" (If i got this question properly.)

I am sorry for my making you angry from time to time.

 

[Raymott]

I don't know for prescribed grammar but if you ask my opinion ...

I'm pretty sure, after having read posts #13 and #14, that he isn't.