0
Coincidence Posted 11 years ago
Grammar
lived/ was living
Hello, could you help me with these sentences:
1. They were living in France when the war broke out.
2. They lived in France when they were young.
I feel it's natural to say it this way but what is the good explanation why the verb live should be used in the Past Continuous Tense in the first sentence and in the Past Simple Tense in the second sentence?
In the first example a long action is interrupted by a short action (Past Continuous+ Past Simple). In the second sentence we have two long parallel actions, the verb live is used in the Past Simple Tense as in the sentence, e.g.:
In 1939 they lived in France.
Could you add any other reasons why the verb live should be used in the Past Continuous Tense in the first sentence and in the Past Simple tense in the second sentence?
Would it be possible to use the Past Continuous as well in the second sentence?
They were living in France when they were young.
(I don't think so).
Thank you for your help.
Kind regards.
1. They were living in France when the war broke out.
2. They lived in France when they were young.
I feel it's natural to say it this way but what is the good explanation why the verb live should be used in the Past Continuous Tense in the first sentence and in the Past Simple Tense in the second sentence?
In the first example a long action is interrupted by a short action (Past Continuous+ Past Simple). In the second sentence we have two long parallel actions, the verb live is used in the Past Simple Tense as in the sentence, e.g.:
In 1939 they lived in France.
Could you add any other reasons why the verb live should be used in the Past Continuous Tense in the first sentence and in the Past Simple tense in the second sentence?
Would it be possible to use the Past Continuous as well in the second sentence?
They were living in France when they were young.
(I don't think so).
Thank you for your help.
Kind regards.
Top answer
I think you have given the proper analysis. In #2, you have 2 completed actions. There is no durative action that is interrupted.
- I think you have given the proper analysis.
- In #2, you have 2 completed actions.
- There is no durative action that is interrupted.
- Simple past is the natural choice.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
3 Answers
0
I think you have given the proper analysis.
In #2, you have 2 completed actions.
There is no durative action that is interrupted. Simple past is the natural choice.
In #2, you have 2 completed actions.
There is no durative action that is interrupted. Simple past is the natural choice.
00
CoincidenceIn the first example a long action is interrupted by a short action (Past Continuous+ Past Simple). In the second sentence we have two long parallel actions, the verb live is used in the Past Simple Tense as in the sentence, e.g.:In 1939 they lived in France.It seems you've answered your own question, and quite well, I'd say. There's nothing to ad
00
Related Questions