It rained / was raining for eight hours. (The past simple / The past continuous)

[Tarheel]

I guess I should have phrased it differently. We don't generally use any kind of time with that word. (It is possible. For example, you might say, for example, 'It took me ten minutes to finish that job."

 

[Tarheel]

Do you want to say it took somebody two days to die?

 

[jutfrank]

We can't say "She died for two days", but I think it's grammatically correct to say "She was dying for two days"

Yes, right. The best way to understand this is that there are two different senses of the verb die here. In the first sentence, it means something like 'change state from living to dead' whereas in the second it means something like 'undergo the process unto death'. The first sense carries no duration, so you can't use it with a durational time phrases. The second does, and hence you can. There are many other verbs like this.

we can't say "I finished my homework for two hours", but I think it's grammatically correct to say "I was finishing my homework for two hours."

Right. For precisely the same reasons as above.

I just didn't know that we can use the past simple with duration with other action verbs such as, 'to rain' or 'to play tennis', or 'to walk' etc. Our teachers at schools teach people that only the past/future continuous is possible with duration.

I'm sorry your teachers have such poor understanding.

 

[Michaelll]

Do you want to say it took somebody two days to die?

Some kind of. Actually, I just want to say how long a process went on/lasted.

Yes, right. The best way to understand this is that there are two different senses of the verb die here. In the first sentence, it means something like 'change state from living to dead' whereas in the second it means something like 'undergo the process unto death'. The first sense carries no duration, so you can't use it with a durational time phrases. The second does, and hence you can. There are many other verbs like this.

Right. For precisely the same reasons as above.

I'm sorry your teachers have such poor understanding.

"It rained all day" is perfectly natural.

You helped me so much! Thank you! I AM going to surprise my teacher So glad, thank you again!

It seems to me I've finally understood the way duration is expressed in English. If a verb has no sense of completion such as, 'to rain' or 'to play' or 'to walk', we can use either the past simple or the past continuous (the most common is the past simple). But if a verb has a strong sense of completion such as, 'to build' or 'to finish' or 'to die' the only way that we can show duration using that verb is the continuous aspect.
This explanation seems much better than what our teachers say: "'duration' means that something continues, It isn't an instant but a long action, that's why we must use the continuous".

The past simple doesn't work because "They built" is a single finished action. It can't last for five years. "They were building ..." is possible.

I have the only problem, how to tell if a verb has a strong sense of completion?
In other words: how to tell if a verb is like 'to rain' or 'to build'?

If it's OK, may I ask you about these two verbs:
Are these two sentences fine or should they be in the past continuous?

Yesterday I read a book for half an hour.
My grandfather learned English for only three months.

 

[jutfrank]

It seems to me I've finally understood the way duration is expressed in English.

You're evidently on the way, but unfortunately it does get a bit more complicated!

If a verb has no sense of completion such as, 'to rain' or 'to play' or 'to walk', we can use either the past simple or the past continuous (the most common is the past simple).

Generally, yes, but it's not quite so simple. You can in fact use play and walk with a sense of completion. Look:

I walked to work yesterday.
Tottenham played Marseille in the UCL last night.

Nobody is going to think you walked only part of the way to work or that the football match didn't finish. The meaning comes from a) the context, and b) the listener's understanding of how the world works. Here's another example we had recently on the forum:

I went home and read a book.

There are two ways you could interpret this sentence. First, (a 'telic' interpretation) that you read the whole book and got to the end, and second (an 'atelic' one), that you read only a passage from the book.

(Also, it's not quite right what you say about the past simple being the 'most common'—rather, it's the most simple. That means that you'd need a special reason to add continuous aspect to the sentence.)

But if a verb has a strong sense of completion such as, 'to build' or 'to finish' or 'to die' the only way that we can show duration using that verb is the continuous aspect.

That's not strictly true. You can also show duration by using a duration phrase, such as for half an hour. (See below)

I have the only problem, how to tell if a verb has a strong sense of completion?
In other words: how to tell if a verb is like 'to rain' or 'to build'?

You have to understand the meaning of the sentence as a whole, by interpreting it in context.

Are these two sentences fine or should they be in the past continuous?

Yesterday I read a book for half an hour.

Yes, this is fine, as we've already suggested. The durational phrase for half an hour tells us that you don't mean to say that you completed the book. In other words, the sense of the verb read is telic, because of for half an hour. You'd need a special reason to use the past continuous there.

My grandfather learned English for only three months.

Yes, for the same reason.

 

[Michaelll]

Generally, yes, but it's not quite so simple. You can in fact use play and walk with a sense of completion. Look:

I walked to work yesterday.
Tottenham played Marseille in the UCL last night.

Yes, I understand that.
I walked in the park (for half an hour). - Process
I walked to the park (in half an hour). - Result
I was walking to the park when you called me. - Process

But if a verb has a strong sense of completion such as, 'to build' or 'to finish' or 'to die' the only way that we can show duration using that verb is the continuous aspect.

That's not strictly true. You can also show duration by using a duration phrase, such as for half an hour. (See below)

You have to understand the meaning of the sentence as a whole, by interpreting it in context.

Are these two sentences fine or should they be in the past continuous?

Yesterday I read a book for half an hour.
My grandfather learned English for only three months.

Yes, this is fine, as we've already suggested. The durational phrase for half an hour tells us that you don't mean to say that you completed the book. In other words, the sense of the verb read is telic, because of for half an hour. You'd need a special reason to use the past continuous there.

Yes, for the same reason.

May, I please ask you, if what you wrote above is true and we can use the past simple with duration with verbs that have a strong sense of completion, and these two sentences, "Yesterday I read a book for half an hour", "My grandfather learned English for only three months" as you said, are fine, and we don't have to use the past continuous, then why did Emsr2d2 write this:

They <built> <were building> their house for five years.
1. Both are possible.

They <built> <were building> their house for five years.
2. Both are wrong. The past simple doesn't work because "They built" is a single finished action. It can't last for five years. "They were building ..." is possible.

That day, I <played> <was playing> tennis with my friends for two hours.
3. Both are possible.

It was after this Emsr2d2's post that I came to this conclusion:

It seems to me I've finally understood the way duration is expressed in English. If a verb has no sense of completion such as, 'to rain' or 'to play' or 'to walk', we can use either the past simple or the past continuous (the most common is the past simple). But if a verb has a strong sense of completion such as, 'to build' or 'to finish' or 'to die' the only way that we can show duration using that verb is the continuous aspect.

The conclusion that you, as a native English speaker, kind of refuted by saying "That's not strictly true. You can also show duration by using a duration phrase".

This topic is very important to me! Thank you for your help and clarifications.

 

[Tarheel]

Say:

Why did she write that?

 

[Michaelll]

Say:

Why did she write that?

Yes, if what Jutfrank wrote above is true, then why did Emsr2d2 wrote this?

Sorry, I can't understand it. It seems to me that these are contradictory statements.

 

[Tarheel]

"Why did she wrote this?" is ungrammatical.

 

[5jj]

The original sentence that emsr2d2 said was wrong was "They was building the house for five years". She went on to say that "They were building ..." was possible.

 

[Michaelll]

The original sentence that emsr2d2 said was wrong was "They was building the house for five years". She went on to say that "They were building ..." was possible.

Sorry, I was asking not about that, but about a different topic.

 

[sitifan]

1. Yesterday, <it rained> <was raining> for two hours.
Both are possible.
2. Both are wrong. The past simple doesn't work because "They built" is a single finished action. It can't last for five years. The other choice is wrong because "They was building" is incorrect. "They were building their house for five years" is possible.

Is the sentence below acceptable?
Mr. Wang was living in Taipei for nearly three years.

 

[5jj]

It's possible in some contexts.

 

[Tarheel]

Is the sentence below acceptable?
Mr. Wang was living in Taipei for nearly three years.

More likely:

Mr. Wang lived in Taipei for almost three years.

 

[emsr2d2]

I have some advice:

1. Don't stress about this. It takes near-fluency to master such grammatical concepts.
2. If your teacher doesn't accept our responses, you will just have to give her the answers she wants in tests and exams, while learning more natural English through this forum and through reading well-written English texts (or watching decent English TV and films).

 

[jutfrank]

I can't see where I've contradicted anything emsr2d2 has said.

 

[Michaelll]

I have some advice:

Thank you! I'll listen to it.

I can't see where I've contradicted anything emsr2d2 has said.

Sorry, it seems I couldn't explain what I meant.

In #8 I asked which tense should I use the past simple or the past continuous if I want to tell my friend what happened in the past, and for how long that action lasted. And I gave some example sentences:

1. Yesterday, <it rained> <was raining> for two hours.
2. They <built> <were building> their house for five years.
3. That day, I <played> <was playing> tennis with my friends for two hours.

Then I got this reply from Emsr2d2:

1. Both are possible.
2. The past simple doesn't work because "They built" is a single finished action. It can't last for five years. "They were building ..." is possible.
3. Both are possible.

Because of sentence 2 in the past simple being wrong (since that verb shows a finished action that can't last for five years), while sentences 1 and 3 are correct, I drew the conclusion: "I've finally understood the way duration is expressed in English. If a verb has no sense of completion such as, 'to rain' or 'to play' or 'to walk', we can use either the past simple or the past continuous (the most common is the past simple). But if a verb has a strong sense of completion such as, 'to build one's house' or 'to read a book' or 'to learn a language' or "to die", etc. the only way that we can show duration using that verb is the continuous aspect." to the second part of which, Jutfrank wrote this:

That's not strictly true. You can also show duration by using a duration phrase, such as for half an hour. (See below)

and then to my question Jutfrank replied with the following:

 

[Tarheel]

Have your questions been answered?

 

[Michaelll]

Have your questions been answered?

Honestly, I still can't understand if I can say sentences such as I wrote below, or should it be the past continuous instead of the past simple.

• Yesterday I read a book for half an hour.
• She built her house for five years.
• My grandfather learned English for only three months.

 

[Barque]

Yesterday I read a book for half an hour.

Both past continuous and past simple are possible. You can use the past simple to make a mere statement of fact.
What did you do in the afternoon yesterday?
I had lunch. Then I read a book for half an hour. Then I took a nap.
This tells the listener that you stopped reading after half an hour.

The past continuous helps with some contexts.
I was reading a book the whole night. - It tells the listener that you spent a certain period reading a book. You may have continued reading into the morning, or you may have stopped as soon as it started getting light.

What were you doing yesterday?
I was reading a book for half an hour. - I'm afraid I can't think of a context where you might need to say this. You'd need a very specific context.
But you could say: I was brushing my teeth for half an hour this morning because I was lost in thought. This is possible because brushing teeth normally only takes a few minutes. The past continuous emphasises that you spent a longer time than usual doing it.

You could also say, I was reading a book yesterday. I don't know where I've put it. This implies you didn't finish reading it.

She built her house for five years.

This doesn't make sense to me. "She built" implies a completed act. emsr2d2 has already told you that.

You could say:
She built a house. It took her five years.
She built a house in 2019. This implies it took her less than a year.


You could say She was building a house for five years, though it still seems unlikely. You'd only say it in a particular situation, for example if she stopped before the building was complete. She was building a house for five years, and then she abandoned it though it was almost complete.

My grandfather learned English for only three months.

This is fine. Learning a language usually takes longer than three months. This serves to tell the listener that he spent three months learning the language, and presumably learnt it to some extent.

You could also say My grandfather was learning English for three months (though I'd prefer "studying" here). But again, you need a specific context.
My grandfather was learning/studying English for three months. That's what we all thought. But he was actually just hanging out with friends my grandmother disapproves of.