I <played/was playing> tennis while she <read/was reading> a book. (simultaneous actions in the past)

[Michaelll]

Hello everyone! I have a problem and I would like you to help me. Our teachers, I mean my teacher, my friends' teachers, and most of our textbooks on English grammar, they all teach us, their students, that there are some 'signal words' (some call them 'time markers') which help us to determine that we need to use the past continuous over the past simple (with action verbs).
Those 'signal words' include 'while', 'from ... to ...', 'all/the whole day/morning/evening'.

For instance, they give us English quizzes (among others) such as this:

• We (watched/were watching) movies all night long.
• I (played/was playing) tennis while she (read/was reading) a book.
• My son (did/was doing) his homework yesterday from 2 to 4 p.m.
• It (rained/was raining) the whole day yesterday.
• and so on.

And they ask us to use the appropriate tense out of a few (in this case, they would be the past simple and the past continuous).
And we have to check the examples for the 'signal words' and if we see any of those 'while', 'from ... to ...', 'all/the whole day/morning/evening' in the sentence, we should choose the past continuous. If we choose the past simple tense, it's considered to be a mistake and we get a lower grade.

When I tried to talk to my teacher and explain that I'd heard and seen the past simple with those 'signal words' (with action verbs), she told me that "It's like Americans using the past simple with 'just' when they should use the present perfect. It's not good English. The past continuous is for periods and continual processes. If you want to convey a sense of process, you must use the past continuous instead of the past simple especially with those signal words.".

Is it true? Does those 'signal words' require the past continuous in the same way as 'just' requires the present perfect over the past simple in British English?

 

[emsr2d2]

For instance, they give us English quizzes (among others) such as this:

• We (watched/were watching) movies all night long.
• I (played/was playing) tennis while she (read/was reading) a book.
• My son (did/was doing) his homework yesterday from 2 to 4 p.m.
• It (rained/was raining) the whole day yesterday.
• and so on.
  
  
• When I tried to talk to my teacher and explain that I'd heard and seen the past simple with those 'signal words' (with action verbs), she told me that "It's like Americans using the past simple with 'just' when they should use the present perfect. It's not good English. The past continuous is for periods and continual processes. If you want to convey a sense of process, you must use the past continuous instead of the past simple especially with those signal words.".
  
  Is it true? Does those 'signal words' require the past continuous in the same way as 'just' requires the present perfect over the past simple in British English?

Unfortunately for you, both tenses are grammatically correct and natural in all those sentences. It's useless as a quiz.

It's true that AmE sometimes uses the past simple where BrE would use the present perfect. However, for your teacher to say it's "not good English" is appalling.

 

[Barque]

In your sentences, both the past simple and the present continuous could work, depending on context, and depending on what was said earlier. I see what your teacher means by signal words but I don't think it works as a rule.

I (played/was playing) tennis while she (read/was reading) a book.

What did you and your wife do at the club yesterday afternoon?
I played tennis while she read a book.

What were you and your wife doing at the club yesterday between 2 and 4 in the afternoon?
I was playing tennis while she was reading a book.

 

[Michaelll]

Unfortunately for you, both tenses are grammatically correct and natural in all those sentences.

What do you mean by "unfortunately for you"? I'm ready to accept any answer.

Do you think these would be acceptable or would they grate on your ears?

• We watched movies all night long.
• I played tennis while she read a book.
• My son did his homework yesterday from 2 to 4 p.m.
• It rained the whole day yesterday.

After all I've been taught, to my mind, they are crying out for the past continuous.

In your sentences, both the past simple and the present continuous could work, depending on context, and depending on what was said earlier. I see what your teacher means by signal words but I don't think it works as a rule.

Thank you, Barque.

Depending on context? Well, our teachers say that those 'signal words' are already the very context that requires the use of the past continuous over the past simple.

 

[5jj]

• We watched movies all night long.
• I played tennis while she read a book.
• My son did his homework yesterday from 2 to 4 p.m.
• It rained the whole day yesterday.

They are all fine.

After all I've been taught, to my mind, they are cryiWell, our teachers say that those 'signal words' are already the very context that requires the use of the past continuous over the past simple.

Your teachers are mistaken.

 

[Barque]

• We watched movies all night long.
• I played tennis while she read a book.
• My son did his homework yesterday from 2 to 4 p.m.
• It rained the whole day yesterday.

I think they're all fine except the homework one, though it isn't ungrammatical. The words "did his" suggest completion and that doesn't go with the time period. I'd prefer something like "worked on", though the repetition of "work" sounds a little awkward.

Depending on context? Well, our teachers say that those 'signal words' are already the very context that requires the use of the past continuous over the past simple.

I disagree.

 

[Michaelll]

They are all fine.

OK, thanks.

I think they're all fine except the homework one, though it isn't ungrammatical. The words "did his" suggest completion and that doesn't go with the time period. I'd prefer something like "worked on", though the repetition of "work" sounds a little awkward.

Thank you!

Then what do we do with "I played tennis while she read a book", and for example, "My son read a book from 2 to 4 p.m. yesterday", and so on? Should we use the past continuous in these?

 

[Barque]

Probus made a good post in another thread earlier today, about how rules aren't to be strictly followed always. Will see if I can find it.

 

[Barque]

Then what do we do with "I played tennis while she read a book", and for example, "My son read a book from 2 to 4 p.m. yesterday", and so on?

These two are fine.

 

[Barque]

@Michaelll, please see post #2 here, from Probus.

'Just' with Past Simple

Hello, When I studied English (quite some time ago) the rule/the use of the Present Perfect with 'just' was clear, fixed. Past Simple was not an option. Nowadays I often see/hear examples, especially in American English, where 'just' is used with the Past Simple. Is that grammatically...

www.usingenglish.com

 

[Michaelll]

@Michaelll, please see post #2 here, from Probus.

Two points @Mzungu39. First, native speakers (of any language) don't rely on rules. Rules help people learn additional languages, but native speakers know intuitively what is acceptable and what is not. Secondly, we here at UE are descriptivists, meaning that whatever native speakers customarily use must be considered acceptable even if it is not strictly grammatical. And as you have correctly observed in AmE the simple past is very often used, even where the past perfect would be better.

Is it also related to those signal words, 'while', 'from ... to ...', 'all/the whole day/morning/evening/night'? Using the past simple (instead of the past continuous) with them is not grammatical but is acceptable, is this what you're telling me?

 

[Barque]

No. As I said, your sentences are grammatical. I quoted Probus for the general principle behind his words.

I didn't like the homework sentence in your post #4 from a logic point of view but there's nothing wrong with the grammar. And, as I said above, the other three sentences in post 4 are completely fine.

 

[Michaelll]

No. As I said, your sentences are grammatical.

OK, they are grammatical. What do you think, is it better to use the past continuous in them if I want to emphasize a sense of process?

We were watching movies all night long!

 

[Barque]

If you want to emphasise a sense of process, as you put it, yes, you can use the continuous.

In fact that's the usual reason for the continuous. It emphasises the process and links it to the present.

"We were watching movies all night long and we're still talking about them". (For example.)

 

[Tarheel]

We were watching movies all night long!

While I'm sure that's perfectly grammatical, it doesn't seem very natural to me. If I wanted to say I had spent the whole night watching movies I would say, "I watched movies all night."

We don't speak the language based on grammar rules somebody gave us. Instead it's the other way around. They figure out what the rules are based on the way the language is spoken.

 

[Barque]

While I'm sure that's perfectly grammatical, it doesn't seem very natural to me.

I think that might be because of your personal preference, Tarheel.

 

[Tarheel]

@Barque Of course!

 

[Michaelll]

If you want to emphasise a sense of process, as you put it, yes, you can use the continuous.

A: What did you guys do last night?
B: We were watching horror movies all night long! (emphasizing the duration of the process)

Does that work fine?

 

[Tarheel]

A: What did you guys do last night?
B: We were watching horror movies all night long! (emphasizing the duration of the process)

Does that work fine?

Speaking strictly in terms of grammar, sure. Would you be likely to hear that in a real conversation? (I have already commented on that.)

Offhand, I would say the continuous form isn't used often.

As for emphasizing the duration of the process, you have already done that with "all night long".

If you insist on using past continuous that way nobody can stop you.

 

[Michaelll]

I've just found this in English Vocabulary in Use 4th Edition 2017, Unit 92, B.


I have to admit, I'm quite surprised. Don't you think the past continuous would sound better there?