"Nero played music while Rome was burning."

I just copied it from one English workbook for primary school. If it was watched, saw... I would take it as correct. This really bothers me, I cannot think of any grammar rule that this sentence makes correct, perhaps I am wrong.

I am confused since the book is for 7th graders and they are just about to learn the basic form like...a simple somehow 'interrupts' or 'stops' a long action in continuous form ( just basic like she broke her arm while she was skiing) it never occurred to me it actually is present participle....

It is why I mention see and watch as in 'I saw them playing, running..)

I still cannot grasp Nero one since there must be some other ways it to be described...yes that lack of connection...

Wouldn't it be easier to say that he played/was playing while watching the burning Rome?

  • Hello, Jenny. ''Petro helped with the fire-fighting while Rome was burning''. You can use past simple alongside the past continuous. Perhaps you're worried about the apparent lack of connection between a city burning and a ruler playing music. "The citizens of Istria went about their normal business while Rome was burning" is equally grammatical. Feb 19 '18 at 23:44

First: "was burning" in this context is middle-voice = passive voice using active voice.

Second, we have 2 actions:

  • was burning = needs to be in continuous mode, because it denotes an ongoing, longer activity;
  • played (music) = it is a (rather short) action (event) which happened during the long(er) activity (the burning)

The specific phrase refers the a story that Emporer Nero played music instead of organising the firefighters in the great fire of Rome.

The grammar is correct. The past tense for the action in the past:

Nero played music.

and a "while" phrase using a continuous tense is typical and correct

while Rome was burning.

This tells us when Nero played music, and suggests that the fire was burning for a period of time. This is the past continuous form of the verb "burn"

Burn is a verb that can have a two senses, one with and one without an object:

I burn the paper

The paper burns

Compare this to

I close the door

The door closes.

So it is correct to say "Rome was burning", to mean "Rome was on fire."


In that sentence burning is not a verb (one of the telltale signs is that there is no object), and so that clause is not a past continuous clause but rather a past simple clause where the word burning is a present participle(a type of adjective) and the verb is was.

as in: He is annoying.

annoying is not a verb, it is an adjective, a predicate nominative not an object.

it might be more obvious in: the burning man struggled for his life.

also from dictionary.com:



  1. aflame; on fire.

  2. very hot; simmering: The water was burning.

  3. very bright; glowing: She wore a burning red bathing suit.

  • 'Burning' is the present participle here; intransitive verbs (more accurately, verbs used intransitively) have no objects. A better check is 'while Rome was burning to the ground'. Feb 19 '18 at 23:45
  • I think the dictionary is quite clear on this case. Burning is synonymous to aflame. Example 2 clearly shows that it is the same structure and burning is an adjective there. a better check is : He is happy to a fault; does that mean happy is a verb ? Feb 19 '18 at 23:55
  • Think about 'Rome burned to the ground while Nero was playing.' (Just the construction, not the time he'd have to keep fiddling.) 'Playing', like 'burning' in OP's example, is a verb-form. Feb 20 '18 at 0:22
  • I understand it now, that object part :D I am not allowed to thank, nevertheless I will, Big thank you Mr Ashworth. x
    – Jenny G.
    Feb 20 '18 at 10:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.