Past progressive

Question

Hi,But by the mid-1990s, even as she was moving into acting with films like “The Bodyguard” and “The Preacher’s Wife,” she became what she described, in a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEpscrUXtKA&feature=related with Oprah Winfrey, as a “heavy” user of http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/m/marijuana/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier and cocaine. By the 2000s she was struggling; her voice grew smaller, scratchier and less secure, and her performances grew erratic.The progressive presents the situation as being in progress.  It also implies that the situation continued or will continue beyond the point being talked about.  For example,Ed was watching television. Ed's watching television continued after the time being referred to.But it doesn't always have to be that way.Ed was watching television until the power went off.The past progressive refers to a subinteval of the total interval of time during he watched television.  That is nothing new when compared to the previous example, but this time, there is no implication that his watching television contiuned beyond the time when the power went off.Now it's time for me to ask some questionsex1) By the mid-1990s, even as she was moving into acting, she became a heavy drug user.ex2) By the 2000s she was struggling.Q1) Do both examples refer to a subinterval of the total interval of some event?Q2) What is the time being referred to in each of the examples? I was studying in the library from 10 to 11.The time being referred to is from 10 to 11, with 10 being the starting point and 11 being the end point.So,Time being referred to: 1990-1995 (example 1)TIme being referred to: 2000-2009 (example 2)Q2-1) Correct?Q3) Is there an implication that her moving into acting or her struggling contiuned after the time being referred to, namely mid-1990s and 2000s, respectively?I'd appreciate your help.

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

jooneyex1) By the mid-1990s, even as she was moving into acting, she became a heavy drug user.
ex2) By the 2000s she was struggling.

Q1) Do both examples refer to a subinterval of the total interval of some event?

Yes, though these intervals are not very explicitly stated.

jooneyQ2) What is the time being referred to in each of the examples?

I was studying in the library from 10 to 11.

The time being referred to is from 10 to 11, with 10 being the starting point and 11 being the end point.

So,

Time being referred to: 1990-1995 (example 1)
TIme being referred to: 2000-2009 (example 2)

Q2-1) Correct?

Working with the information given, these seem correct to me.

jooneyQ3) Is there an implication that her moving into acting or her struggling contiuned after the time being referred to, namely mid-1990s and 2000s, respectively?

We might reasonably infer that, even though there is nothing in the sentences that, strictly speaking, implies these things (in a logical sense).

CJ

Jooney · Answer

Thank you very much, CJ.  I'm glad that my analysis wasn't that far off this time.<img class='emoticon' style='Width:19px;Height:19px;' data-delaysrc='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' src='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' alt='Emotion: smile'/>

Jooney · Answer

Hi CJ,

Another thought occured to my mind while reviewing this thread.

Isn't it true that "by" usually indicates the terminal point of some activity? For example,

I have to hand in an essay by Friday.

This means you have to complete the activity of handing in an essay no later than Friday.

So my question is whether the progressive aspect and "by" can go together. I mean they can go together, but it doesn't seem that the implication that a certain activity continued or will continue beyond the point being talked about is feasible.

I'd like your opinion. Thank you.

note: As for example 1, "The Bodyguard" and "The Preacher’s Wife" were released in 1992 and 1996, respectively.

CalifJim · Answer

jooneyIsn't it true that "by" usually indicates the terminal point of some activity? For example,

I have to hand in an essay by Friday.

This means you have to complete the activity of handing in an essay no later than Friday.

True. Here you have an example of an obligation that has to be fulfilled BY a certain time. That makes the time in question the terminal point of the obligation.

[have to / must] X BY ( time )

Likewise where the time is not so definitely a terminal point:

[can / could / may be able to / ...] BY ( time )

In these last examples the speaker takes upon himself a sort of partial obligation. He is only going to try to fulfill this self-imposed obligation by a certain time. Nevertheless, the main features of the usage are the same.

jooney ... progressive aspect and "by" ... it doesn't seem that the implication that a certain activity continued or will continue beyond the point being talked about is feasible.

Right in some cases, but your first example (below) shows a pattern similar to those above, although not with obligation. The subordinate clause, which has the progressive aspect, is parenthetical. The main clause says she became a heavy drug user by the mid-1990s. This makes the vague time period of the mid-1990s the terminal point, i.e., the (vague and approximate) time after which it would be impossible not to notice that she had become a heavy drug user. The words 'terminal point' are probably inappropriate, however, because the actions described do not end then. In fact, an argument can be made that the actions begin then, though a more subtle analysis might find that the by-phrase tells us neither the beginning nor the end of any action, but only when some on-going phenomenon (her drug use) becomes clear, or 'comes into focus'.

The parenthetical part in the progressive aspect is there to say that while she was moving into acting, she was also moving toward becoming a heavy drug user. The two developments in her life were happening concurrently. Further, the time period called 'the mid-1990s' was also unfolding while the other two developments were happening.

ex1) By the mid-1990s, even as she was moving into acting, she became a heavy drug user.
ex2) By the 2000s she was struggling.

As for the second example (immediately above), I think you can see that the same logic applies. It's saying that some process was going on in which things were becoming increasingly more difficult for her. Then there came a point (again, it's probably inappropriate to call it a terminal point) when the difficulties reached the stage where we would have to call them 'struggles', not just 'having some troubles'.

I suggest the term "focus point" instead of "terminal point" for these constructions because it is the point when some on-going process "comes into focus".

By the end of the day the children are always getting very fidgety.
By the end of the month we were worrying about where the next meal would come from.
At the rate we're saving, by the end of the year we'll be calling ourselves rich!

CJ

Jooney · Answer

Hi CJ,

Sorry for replying so late. I was out of town for a couple of days, so I didn't really get a chance to read your answer thoroughly.

ex1) By the mid-1990s, even as she was moving into acting, she became a heavy drug user.

"The main clause says she became a heavy drug user by the mid-1990s. This makes the vague time period of the mid-1990s the terminal point, i.e., the (vague and approximate) time after which it would be impossible not to notice that she had become a heavy drug user. The words 'terminal point' are probably inappropriate, however, because the actions described do not end then. In fact, an argument can be made that the actions begin then, though a more subtle analysis might find that the by-phrase tells us neither the beginning nor the end of any action, but only when some on-going phenomenon (her drug use) becomes clear, or 'comes into focus'."

I'm a little confused here. In the beginning, you seem to be saying that the activity of her becoming a heavy drug user is completed by the mid-1990s, but later in the paragraph, you seem to imply that under close scrutiny the activity doesn't end there. But Isn't it true that her transition from one state to another(that is, the state of being normal to the state of being a heavy drug user) is done by the mid-1990s? Of course, the resulting state from the event of her turing into a heavy drug user continues from that point on. So beyond the time period of mid-1990s, she remains a heavy drug user. In essence, the verb "become" has a dynamic meaning and its whole process is presented as a whole here, which provides a basis for using the past tense.

ex2) By the 2000s she was struggling.

"As for the second example (immediately above), I think you can see that the same logic applies. It's saying that some process was going on in which things were becoming increasingly more difficult for her. Then there came a point (again, it's probably inappropriate to call it a terminal point) when the difficulties reached the stage where we would have to call them 'struggles', not just 'having some troubles'."

So this means that by 2009 her having difficulties over things reached a stage of "struggle". When that struggle exactly began, we don't know. But what we do know is that her struggle began at some point during this time(2000-2009) and was still an ongoing event at the end of 2009. Therefore, we can infer that the struggle continued beyond that time. Am I correct about this?

By the end of the day the children are always getting very fidgety.
By the end of the month we were worrying about where the next meal would come from.

As for the first example, it isn't really clear whether the particular event under consideration ended by the time referred to. Just because they were getting fidgety by the end of the day doesn't mean they were in state of being fidgety the next day. Right? As for the second example, you can ask the same thing, but for some reason I get the impression that the worry carried over to the next month. Am I wrong about this? I mean those two examples are supposed to explain the concept of "coming into focus", and yet they don't seem to yield the same interpretation to me. What am I missing here? I'd appreciate your help one more time.

Past progressive

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions