3

What's the difference between the past simple and the past continuous when using "from ... to ..."?

I read a book from 2 to 4pm.
I was reading a book from 2 to 4pm.

I built a ship from 2 to 4pm.
I was building a ship from 2 to 4pm.

I repaired my bike from 2 to 4pm.
I was repairing my bike from 2 to 4pm.

Improve this question
1
  • Your third example doesn't really work: it implies that a person can build a ship in two hours. (But it might be possible if it was a model of a ship.)
    – TonyK
    Commented Jun 6, 2022 at 12:57

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
6

The difference is in whether you are choosing to present the activity as a completed whole, or as a process that continued. That is all.

There is no objective difference. There are no implications that are different.

There might be (but would not necessarily be) some different implications in what follows that statement. So if the next sentence after any of them was John came to talk to me, then with the "continuous" forms there is a suggestion that this happened during the activity, whereas with the simple past forms there is no such suggestion: it might have been during or after the activity. And even with the continuous forms, that suggestion could be overridden by something else in the discourse.

Improve this answer
8
  • Thank you! > The diffference is in whether you are choosing to present the activity as a completed whole, or as a process that continued. That is all. Do I get it right: if I didn't finish/build the ship in two hours, I can't say "I built it from 2 to 4pm", only "I was building it from 2 to 4pm", right?
    – IlyaTretyakov
    Commented Jun 5, 2022 at 18:44
  • 3
    @IlyaTretyakov Sometimes you can talk about incomplete actions using the past simple: It is perfectly fine to say, for example "I read my book from 2 to 4" even if you didn't finish it. In the case of 'build', the verb itself implies that the action is finished.
    – George K.
    Commented Jun 5, 2022 at 18:52
  • 2
    Yes. I would think the primary difference is that you only use "I was playing" when you want to say something about the time at which it happened: "The plane crashed at 10:30a.m. I was playing tennis at the time". With "I played tennis" the focus is on the activity, not the time at which it occurred: "I once played tennis against Mary. She beat me easily."
    – Michael Kay
    Commented Jun 6, 2022 at 8:12
  • 1
    @MichaelKay sorry, that's not what I'm asking about. I'm trying to find out whether I can use the past simple with "from .. to.." even if I didn't finish the book/the ship etc. or is it necessary to use the past continuous. Examples: I read a book from 2 to 4pm. I wrote a book from 2 to 4pm. I built a ship from 2 to 4pm. (None was complete)
    – IlyaTretyakov
    Commented Jun 6, 2022 at 8:15
  • 1
    @IlyaTretyakov: When the action is clearly telic, (eg I baked a cake) then the past simple implies it was complete. But read a book is not clearly telic - it can be used either way. Built a ship is probably telic, but I don't think it has to be.
    – Colin Fine
    Commented Jun 6, 2022 at 10:47
5

In terms of literal meaning, they are equivalent. The difference is one of emphasis.

Main Events

The first reason to use the past continuous is to emphasize the main event of some story. If several things were happening, placing the main one in the past simple and the rest in past perfect serves to emphasize the main event. For example:

I was walking down the street--listening to music--and suddenly this guy jumped out at me!

Experience of Continuous Action

The other main reason one might use past continuous is to draw attention to the experience of an ongoing event. The past can be used to emphasize the experience of an ongoing event. This is a more subtle difference.

To give a practical example:

  1. I was working in the field yesterday.
  2. I worked in the field yesterday.

To my ear, (1) brings to mind the action and experience of field work: standing in the field, under the sun, etc. The speaker experienced the action "working in the field." (2) lacks such associations; to me (2) is more clear and businesslike: yesterday the speaker did work in the field.

Another example:

  1. I was trying as hard as I could to lift it.
  2. I tried as hard as I could to lift it.

As above, (1) brings to mind someone straining against the load, red in the face, etc. They are in the middle of trying. (2) is more matter-of-fact. The speaker tried as hard as he/she could, but now it is over.

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    I think even your first example is the most clear of all of them here - When you say this guy jumped out at me I think of it as something that happened once, like someone tried to scare you. If you said it, this guy was jumping out at me makes it sound like a continuous action (harassment) like he wanted to fight.
    – Chuck
    Commented Jun 6, 2022 at 20:20
2

To add to the previous answers, as a native speaker, in the examples given the past continuous is far more natural than using the past simple. This is particularly because the subject is an activity which took place over a period of time. I think the other answers are much more applicable when the "... from ... to ..." are not part of the sentence. In short:

I repaired my bike yesterday.

sounds just as natural as:

I was repairing my bike yesterday.

but

I repaired my bike from 2 to 4 pm.

does not sound right (although it technically is); it would be more natural to say

I was repairing my bike from 2 to 4 pm.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .