He repaired his bike FOR(not in) half an hour.

[emsr2d2]

It wasn't at all clear to me that your question was whether or not Alex had ever read that book before. Given that you told us that the book had only just been published and his copy had only just been delivered to him, of course he can't have read it before.

 

[dunchee]

Please, do not present, you know what I'm talking about. ....

I think you mean "Please, do not pretend, ..."

 

[5jj]

One point at a time.

• Yesterday, before going to work, Alex repaired his bike for half an hour.

That is not a natural sentence. In that tense, repair a bike is a telic action. If the repair was not completed, we would say "He tried to repair his bike" or "He worked on his bike". If the repair was completed, we would say "Alex repaired his bike in half an hour" or "Alex took half an hour to repair his bike".

• "Alex read the book for twenty minutes"

In that particular sentence, read the book is not a telic action.

 

[5jj]

and the main question (very simple and logical question summing up all that has been said above) is:

Two points here:
1. Languages do not function logically. There are underlying systems, but these have evolved naturally over thousands of years. The 'rules' we often speak of are simply attempts by people to note how most speakers of a language use the language.. they are not ogical laws.
2. Even if English were logical, I see no connection between your question "Can we state afterwards that that same Alex has never read that same book?" to what you presented before. In the light of the information (that the book has just been published) that you presented later, and only in the light of that, can we say that the Alex in question has never read that book before. That cannot be inferred from just the use of certain tenses/aspects.

 

[jutfrank]

I can see two main issues that are complicating the question here.

The first issue revolves around whether the verb repair can permissibly be used in atelic way. emsr2d2 and 5jj are both saying that repair cannot be used in an atelic sense. That is to say that there is something within the semantics of the verb that necessarily means that the object is successfully restored to a working condition. I disagree with this view. Context, both linguistic and situational, largely dictates interpretation.

He repaired his bike for half an hour.
He's repairing his bike.

I can't see any theoretical problem with these sentences. In the first, the time frame for half an hour makes it reasonably clear that the sense is atelic. In the second, the progressive aspect makes it clear that the action was ongoing.

He has repaired his bike.

Here, the perfective aspect makes a telic interpretation extremely likely. Although an atelic reading is extremely unlikely, I do think that it is theoretically possible. This is because the perfective aspect relates only to the completion of the time frame within which the action was performed, not to successfully completing the task.

He tried to repair his bike.

This is obviously meant in a telic sense. The verb trying makes that clear.

The fact that the verb is used more commonly in a telic way does not mean that it cannot be used in an atelic way.

The second issue concerns how verb aspect can interfere with whether we interpret an utterance in a telic way. This is because telicity is in some sense a kind of aspect itself.

Let's agree to discuss one verb and one sentence at a time, to avoid hopelessly confusing the thread.

 

[5jj]

The first issue revolves around whether the verb repair can permissibly be used in atelic way. emsr2d2 and 5jj are both saying that repair cannot be used in an atelic sense.

I'm not. I said in post 22 "In that tense (the past simple) repair a bike is a telic action".

That is to say that there is something within the semantics of the verb that necessarily means that the object is successfully restored to a working condition. I disagree with this view.

So do I.

Context, both linguistic and situational, largely dictates interpretation.

I agree.

Let's agree to discuss one verb and one sentence at a time, to avoid hopelessly confusing the thread.

That would be useful.

 

[jutfrank]

I'm not.

Okay. Sorry to misrepresent you. The thread is pretty hard to follow.

 

[5jj]

The thread is pretty hard to follow.

That's an understatement.