Past simple/Past continuous

Question

Hello!What tense do we use to describe duration with a time expression ( 3 hours, 2 days, 4 weeks etc.)? Past simple or continuous?  I dont have any specific examples but I would really like someone to give me some explanation.

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

Anonymous I don't have any specific examples

Without examples, this type of question is hard to answer. Try to provide at least one example next time.

The past simple is the usual choice with time expressions.

Tom slept for three hours.
Jenny played tennis for two hours.
Frank walked in the park for an hour.

It seems to me that those are the kinds of sentences you are asking about.

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

Thanks Jim for your answer!

I've read some of your previous answers on this issue and thats why this following thread about the hamburger confused me.

I am a bit confused with past simple and past continuous tense. I know all the rules how and when to use them but there are some cases when I am not sure which one to use. I would like to ask you whether we can say I ate my hamburger for an hour or I was eating my hamburger for an hour. Another question is whether it is right to say I cooked lunch for two hour or I was cooking lunch for two hours and is it possible to say I took antibiothics for a week or I was taking antibiothics for a week. I would also like to ask you which one is right When I was ill I did not read a book for a week or I was not reading a book for a week. Thank you for your answer in advance
For the examples about the hamburger, cooking lunch, and taking antibiotics, the past continuous would be better because the actions continued to be in progress over the time periods in the past. For the example about not reading the book, it makes more sense to state what did not happen for that period than for what continued to not happen. The past continue there sounds very strange, as if under normal circumstances, you would be reading nonstop for a week.

The person giving his/her response about the hamburger chooses the Past Continuous. What's your view on it? I'm sorry I didn't give you any examples earlier. I should have given you this one about the hamburger above.

CalifJim · Answer

AnonymousWhat's your view on it?

It depends on the kind of situation you are talking about.

If the verb and its complements suggest a one-time accomplishment (I ate a hamburger; I cooked dinner; I swam across the lake), then the addition of the for-phrase may sound wrong. For example, 'swimming across the lake' takes as much time as it takes to swim across the lake -- no more and no less. It's a one-time action. It's not an activity. So to say that you swam across the lake for three hours sounds wrong. You can change to the continuous and add the for-phrase, but it still doesn't sound exactly correct. I was swimming across the lake for three hours. This seems to imply that you tried to get to the other side of the lake for three hours, or that you kept swimming back and forth across the lake for three hours, but it's not a completely coherent statement. It's hard to know exactly what it means.

Nevertheless, you can say I swam for three hours. Here swimming is an activity that does not have the goal of reaching the other side of the lake. In this case the simple tense is better. I walked for three hours. She played with the children for three hours.

This in mind, I ate a hamburger for 20 minutes is anomalous, and I was eating a hamburger for 20 minutes is slightly less anomalous, but neither is really coherent. Likewise for I cooked dinner for half an hour and I was cooking dinner for half an hour.

Note that situations like sleeping or walking (aimlessly) in a park are different. These situations are inherently continuous, so they are not usually expressed with the continuous tense. The meaning of the predicate already shows the continuous nature of the situation: I slept for 12 hours. Sue walked in the park for two hours. The addition of a for-phrase in these cases is completely natural.

In summary,

If your statement has a 'state predicate' or an 'activity predicate', the past simple with a for-phrase is natural. The past continuous with a for-phrase is not possible with a 'state predicate', and is possible but not so natural with an 'activity predicate'.

Henry had that car for 20 years.
*Henry was having that car for 20 years.

George looked for his lost key for 10 minutes.
?George was looking for his lost key for 10 minutes.

If your statement has an 'accomplishment predicate' or an 'achievement predicate', the for-phrase is not natural with either the past simple or the past continuous.

??? Susan [crossed / was crossing] the street for 10 minutes.

??? Peter [won / was winning] the prize for 20 minutes.

CJ

P.S. This is a more accurate description of the usage than you'll find in any posts I may have written previously on the topic.

Anonymous · Answer

Thank you for the detailed explanation! I had to read it over a few times.

What I understand then is in that specific example (I ate my hamburger for an hour) the use of the past continuous(which was chosen by others as a response) is possible but not so natural because it is an activity predicate. Instead the use of the past simple is natural.(Eating is an activity in the example not an accomplishment or state right)?

CalifJim · Answer

AnonymousWhat I understand then is in that specific example (I ate my hamburger for an hour) the use of the past continuous(which was chosen by others as a response) is possible but not so natural because it is an activity predicate. Instead the use of the past simple is natural.(Eating is an activity in the example not an accomplishment or state right)?

It's not a question of eating being an activity, which it is. You have to take the concept of the whole predicate and evaluate that.

'to eat a hamburger' is what you need to consider -- not 'eating'. 'to eat a hamburger' takes time, and at the end of that time that hamburger is gone; it's eaten. Your goal is accomplished. The action ends. When you have this situation, it's called an accomplishment.

Because 'to eat a hamburger' is an accomplishment, 'ate a hamburger' is an accomplishment predicate. Therefore the for-phrase should not be added either to I ate a hamburger or to I was eating a hamburger.

To make the verb 'eat' an activity, you have to leave out the direct object. You can't say what you ate. Take the sentence I ate, for example. Now the concept is simply 'to eat'. That can be interpreted as an activity. It can continue on and on without stopping, and there is no point in time when it is finished. That kind of situation is called an activity. In this case, add the for-phrase to the simple form. I ate for an hour. Of course, this is an unusual sentence taken by itself. It would probably be expanded. I was so hungry that I ate for an hour before I felt full. Don't be tempted to use I was eating for an hour here. That's not how we say it.

In short, you can't go very wrong if you never add a for-phrase of time to a sentence with a past continuous tense, and if you never add a for-phrase of time to a sentence with a past simple tense that is an accomplishment or an achievement. That leaves only the past simple with a state or activity. For those two types of sentence you may add the for-phrase.

(We should wait to talk about any unusual exceptions you may find until much later. You need to understand these basic principles thoroughly first.)

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

Hey CJ!

Thanks again for taking the time to explain things further for me. Things are much clearer now and the unusual exceptions you mention can wait.

Past simple/Past continuous

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions