Ruled or was ruling

[Rachel Adams]

This sentence is from "Longman Advanced Learner's Grammar" by Mark Foley and Diane Hall. Is it wrong to use the past progressive in this example?


"Ramses II was ruling/ruled over ancient Egypt for more than fifty years."

 

[5jj]

Do you mean that the sentence actually used both forms?

 

[Rachel Adams]

Dou you mean that the sentence actually used both forms?

No, one of them is the correct option. I chose "ruled", but I was wondering if "was ruling" is also correct.

 

[GoesStation]

The sentence doesn't work with the past progressive.

 

[Rachel Adams]

The sentence doesn't work with the past progressive.

This sentence is from the same exercise:

2. "By the middle of the nineteen sixties many parts of Europe experienced/were experiencing a tremendous economic boom."

Is the simple past used to refer to the length of time that somebody did something while the past continuous is used to refer to events?

The third example is similar to the second.

3. "Intervention was urgently required-the starving children grew/were growing weaker day by day and there was/was being ( I chose "was") little sign of an end to the drought." I think both "grew" and "were growing" are correct. In the second sentence both tenses are also correct. I hope I am right.

 

[Yankee]

This sentence is from the same exercise:

2. "By the middle of the nineteen sixties many parts of Europe experienced (the boom ended)/were experiencing (the boom continued) a tremendous economic boom."

Is the simple past used to refer to the length of time (No, an activity) that somebody did (completed/ended) something (Yes.) while the past continuous is used to refer to events (No. Refers to something/an event/activity that was occurring/happening/on-going at a time in the past.) ?

The third example is similar to the second.

3. "Intervention was urgently required-the starving children grew/were growing weaker day by day and there was/was being ( I chose "was") little sign of an end to the drought." I think both "grew" and "were growing" are correct (Yes, in that context.). In the second sentence both tenses are also correct. (No, see notes.) I hope I am right. (Most of the time.:lol

I hope I have understood your post.

 

[GoesStation]

2. "By the middle of the nineteen sixties many parts of Europe experienced/were experiencing a tremendous economic boom."

Is the simple past used to refer to the length of time that somebody did something while the past continuous is used to refer to events?

No. Sentence 2 requires the continuous because it's about an ongoing action.

3. "Intervention was urgently required-the starving children grew/were growing weaker day by day and there was/was being ( I chose "was") little sign of an end to the drought." I think both "grew" and "were growing" are correct. In the second sentence both tenses are also correct. I hope I am right.

"Were growing" is more natural because it refers to an ongoing action.

"Was being" is not possible in the second clause.

 

[Rachel Adams]

No. Sentence 2 requires the continuous because it's about an ongoing action.

"Were growing" is more natural because it refers to an ongoing action.

"Was being" is not possible in the second clause.

But aren't they sometimes interchangeable? For example, "I was studying French at school" and "I studied French at school." Is there any difference in meaning between them? I thought the progressive emphasizes duration, while the past simple in my school example shows that the action wasn't in progress but it was finished, if that's correct, then they are not interchangeable. Or does the past simple also suggest duration in some examples?:shock:

 

[5jj]

But aren't they sometimes interchangeable? For example, "I was studying French at school" and "I studied French at school." Is there any difference in meaning between them?

Yes. Without more context, the first sentence is unnatural.

 

[GoesStation]

But aren't they sometimes interchangeable? For example, "I was studying French at school" and "I studied French at school." Is there any difference in meaning between them?

Yes. Without more context, the first sentence is unnatural.

You can make it natural by establishing that it was an ongoing action set in the past: "When I was seventeen, I wanted nothing more than to live in Paris. I was studying French at school. I was obsessed with everything French." The past simple wouldn't work in this context because it doesn't convey the idea of something that was going on for a long duration -- the year when you were seventeen.

You'll master these tenses and aspects much more efficiently if you stop looking for rules and spend the time you save by reading and listening to English.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

But aren't they sometimes interchangeable? For example, "I was studying French at school" and "I studied French at school." Is there any difference in meaning between them? I thought the progressive emphasizes duration, while the past simple in my school example shows that the action wasn't in progress but it was finished, if that's correct, then they are not interchangeable. Or does the past simple also suggest duration in some examples?:shock:

Another way to look at it is to think of the word "doing," with an "ing." At that time in the past there was something you were doING: studyING French. You are not studyING French now.

 

[Rachel Adams]

You can make it natural by establishing that it was an ongoing action set in the past: "When I was seventeen, I wanted nothing more than to live in Paris. I was studying French at school. I was obsessed with everything French." The past simple wouldn't work in this context because it doesn't convey the idea of something that was going on for a long duration -- the year when you were seventeen.

You'll master these tenses and aspects much more efficiently if you stop looking for rules and spend the time you save by reading and listening to English.

In what situations can they be used interchangeably? In the example below I chose "were working" as the past simple doesn't express duration.
"Many of the survivors worked/were working in the field when the earthquake struck."
But can it also express duration in some contexts and be used instead of the progressive?

 

[5jj]

But can it also express duration in some contexts and be used instead of the progressive?

The past simple never expresses duration, but it can be used of situations that lasted a long time - Dinosaurs roamed the earth for over 150 million years.

 

[Rachel Adams]

The past simple never expresses duration, but it can be used of situations that lasted a long time - Dinosaurs roamed the earth for over 150 million years.

How long is "a long of time" for native speakers of English?
The simple past doesn't work in the sentences below. Is it because the past simple isn't used for shorter periods of time?

1. "By the middle of the nineteen sixties many parts of Europe were experiencing a tremendous economic boom."

2. "Many of the survivors were working in the field when the earthquake struck."
The time dinosaurs roamed the earth is definitely longer than the time people were experiencing an economic boom and the time people were working in the field.

 

[5jj]

Is it because the past simple isn't used for shorter periods of time?

The past simple can be used for very short periods of time. The balloon burst.

 

[Rachel Adams]

The past simple can be used for very short periods of time. The balloon burst.

So it's used for very short actions and long actions (the dinosaur example) but for shorter ongoing actions native speakers use the past progressive. Am I right?

 

[5jj]

So it's used for very short actions and long actions (the dinosaur example) but for shorter ongoing actions native speakers use the past progressive. Am I right?

The length of time a situation lasts has nothing to do with the tense/aspect chosen.

You might find this interesting: https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/threads/287498-Tense-and-Aspect-Durative-Aspect-Part-1

 

[Rachel Adams]

The length of time a situation lasts has nothing to do with the tense/aspect chosen.

You might find this interesting: https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/threads/287498-Tense-and-Aspect-Durative-Aspect-Part-1

I was judging by the explanations in this thread. ".... on for a long duration..." You also mentioned "a long time" in post #13. That's why I figured the length of time matters. Thank you for the link.

 

[emsr2d2]

1. "By the middle of the [STRIKE]nineteen sixties[/STRIKE] 1960s, many parts of Europe were experiencing a tremendous economic boom."

emsr2d2

 

[Rachel Adams]

emsr2d2

I didn't write it. It was in the book.