0

My teacher told me that when I just want to state a fact and I don't intend to make any store then I'm only allowed to use the past simple and not the past continuous For instance

I worked there for three months

I was working there for three months

Is that true or both versions are correct when I just state a fact what I did for three months?

7
  • 1
    Like many general rules, they apply sometimes and not always. Both versions make sense by themselves. Commented Jan 25 at 18:58
  • Both sound natural by themsleves? Commented Jan 25 at 19:00
  • 2
    The second (continuous) version is unlikely except in contexts where you're also talking about other things that happened in the past, such as I was working there for three months when the hurricane hit. But when in doubt, always use simple verb tenses. Commented Jan 25 at 19:38
  • Thank you....... Commented Jan 25 at 19:41
  • Hm, there's a difference between "not allowed to"/"correct" vs "not likely to"/"odd". It's not a rule. Commented Jan 25 at 21:27

1 Answer 1

0

"I worked here for three months" - You worked there for 3 months but no longer work at that company anymore

"I was working there for three months" - You worked there for 3 months and still working for that company now

2
  • 1
    No, this is not the meaning of "was working".
    – James K
    Commented Jan 30 at 6:42
  • As it’s currently written, your answer is unclear. Please edit to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
    – Community Bot
    Commented Jan 30 at 8:34

You must log in to answer this question.

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