# I listened to sth for x minutes: ¿imperfecto / preterito?



## estudiantebueno

If I were to say: 'I listened to 4 BBC mundo podcasts for 45 minutes.'  in Spanish would escuchar be in the imperfect or preterite?

So: Yo escuché 4 podcasts de BBC mundo por 45 minutos.    o
      Yo escuchaba 4 podcasts de BBC mundo por 45 minutos.

Does the inclusion of the number of minutes affect this?


----------



## PACOALADROQUE

Yo escuché...durante...

Al incluir el tiempo se emplea el pretérito perfecto (acción finalizada).
Saludos


----------



## gringuitoloco

PACOALADROQUE said:


> Yo escuché...durante...
> 
> Al incluir el tiempo se emplea el pretérito perfecto (acción finalizada).
> Saludos



/agree.

To use the imperfect in this situation, you would have to add "when ____ happened." I was listening to *** for 45 minutes when the power went out. Or another word like "while."

"..." minutes, when my parents walked in.


----------



## Peterdg

You don't have to add "when...". It's enough when you think it and as nobody can look into your head to see what you're thinking, nobody can tell you that "escuchaba" is wrong.

The original sentences come without any explicit context. As the choice between the imperfect and the indefinite is a contextual choice, it just depends on what the sayer is thinking at that moment and as such, the answer to the question is: you can use both.


----------



## gringuitoloco

Peterdg said:


> You don't have to add "when...". It's enough when you think it and as nobody can look into your head to see what you're thinking, nobody can tell you that "escuchaba" is wrong.
> 
> The original sentences come without any explicit context. As the choice between the imperfect and the indefinite is a contextual choice, it just depends on what the sayer is thinking at that moment and as such, the answer to the question is: you can use both.



In this specific sentence, it gives a time frame. Because that time frame is specified, (for 45 minutes) the action was started and completed. It needs preterite UNLESS more information is ADDED TO THE SENTENCE. The sentence as it is should use preterite.


----------



## Lurrezko

gringuitoloco said:


> In this specific sentence, it gives a time frame. Because that time frame is specified, (for 45 minutes) the action was started and completed. It needs preterite UNLESS more information is ADDED TO THE SENTENCE. The sentence as it is should use preterite.



Not at all. I totally agree with Peter, this choice it's a matter of context:
_
- ¿Qué hacías cuando te levantabas?_
_-*Escuchaba cuatro podcasts de la BBC Mundo durante 45 minutos*. 

- ¿Qué hiciste cuando te levantaste?
*- Escuché cuatro podcasts de la BBC Mundo durante 45 minutos.*_

Saludos


----------



## Peterdg

gringuitoloco said:


> In this specific sentence, it gives a time frame. Because that time frame is specified, (for 45 minutes) the action was started and completed. It needs preterite UNLESS more information is ADDED TO THE SENTENCE. The sentence as it is should use preterite.


Unfortunately, that's exactly the tragedy. There is a serious misconception about the "rules" about tense usage in Spanish. First of all, they shouldn't be called "rules"; they are "considerations". 

There is only 1 *rule*: the interrupting action goes in the indefinite and the interrupted action in the imperfect. All the rest are observations/considerations that describe what a native speaker *may* consider in the decision to use one tense or the other. 

One of these is that if there is a specified time frame, that *may* be an argument for him to choose the indefinite. There is *nothing* that says that *if* there is a time frame specified, you *must* use the indefinite. The speaker may well opt for another consideration in his choice.

So, in the case of the original sentence, "escuché" is certainly valid, but so is "escuchaba".

I'm used to going through the DELE exams of the superior level as they are published on the site of the instituto Cervantes. In all these years (I think I must have gone through the exams of the last 7 years, which corresponds to about 20 exams), there was no single question about the usage of the imperfect versus the indefinite that did not mention a context with a clear interrupting and a clear interrupted action. (Type: "Estaba leyendo un libro cuando llamaron a la puerta"). The reason is simple: without an explicit context, this type of questions makes no sense as both options are possible.

PS

Age is normally expressed with the imperfect, but that is not an absolute rule either.

e.g.  





> Recuerdo que en aquellos días aprendí a odiar a aquella muchacha de diecisiete años (porque para mi Penélope siempre *tuvo* diecisiete años), a la que nunca había conocido ...


"La sombra del viento" de Carlos Ruiz Zafón (sexta impresión, junio 2009, tapa blanda, página 437)


----------



## gringuitoloco

Lurrezko said:


> Not at all. I totally agree with Peter, this choice it's a matter of context:
> _
> - ¿Qué hacías cuando te levantabas?_
> _-*Escuchaba cuatro podcasts de la BBC Mundo durante 45 minutos*.
> 
> - ¿Qué hiciste cuando te levantaste?
> *- Escuché cuatro podcasts de la BBC Mundo durante 45 minutos.*_
> 
> Saludos



I would say that the question is the added information necessary to be able to chose the imperfect. The statement by itself, however, I would say should be preterite.

Also, using imperfect (especially in this case) sounds very weird, even in English.
What were you doing when you were getting up?
When was the last time it took 45 minutes for you to get up? You would have to be rather decrepit...lol And even if someone asked me that, I would still change my answer to have the preterite.


Also, to Peterdg:
I agree that there aren't always "rules" for when to use what tense, however there is almost always a "better option." And by better, I mean more practical/common/colloquial/what-have-you. When deciding what tense to use, there are certain "trigger-words" that should make you lean towards certain tenses. For example:

No he hecho todavía. Todavía tells me that I should use present prefect in place of preterite or imperfect. If I changed it to "ya," then preterite now becomes reasonable, yet present perfect still sounds more common.

Estaba limpiando cuando llegaste. Estaba should be imperfect because cuando tells you that it is a progressive action in this sentence. Something that was happenING, WHEN something else happened. Estuve limpiando just doesn't sound good in this sentence.


There are quite a few of these. I would say that without any context, and as simply a statement made in NO context, the original sentence should be in the preterite. That's why it's so important to have context when asking questions on these forums.


----------



## Lurrezko

gringuitoloco said:


> I would say that the question is the added information necessary to be able to chose the imperfect. The statement by itself, however, I would say should be preterite. *No, I'm afraid you are wrong. Both tenses are possible and natural.*
> 
> Also, using imperfect (especially in this case) sounds very weird, even in English.
> What were you doing when you were getting up? *No, that's not what my example means in Spanish. ¿Qué hacías cuando te levantabas? means ¿qué hacías una vez que te habías levantado/inmediatamente después de levantarte?*
> When was the last time it took 45 minutes for you to get up? You would have to be rather decrepit...lol And even if someone asked me that, I would still change my answer to have the preterite.
> 
> 
> Also, to Peterdg:
> I agree that there aren't always "rules" for when to use what tense, however there is almost always a "better option." And by better, I mean more practical/common/colloquial/what-have-you. When deciding what tense to use, there are certain "trigger-words" that should make you lean towards certain tenses. For example:
> 
> No he hecho todavía. Todavía tells me that I should use present prefect in place of preterite or imperfect. *No, you can use imperfect: No lo hacía todavía. *If I changed it to "ya," then preterite now becomes reasonable, yet present perfect still sounds more common. *With ya, all the tenses you point out are natural: ya no lo hacía/ya no lo hice/ya no lo he hecho. It's a matter of context, once again.*



Saludos


----------



## St. Nick

gringuitoloco said:


> In this specific sentence, it gives a time frame. Because that time frame is specified, (for 45 minutes) the action was started and completed. It needs preterite UNLESS more information is ADDED TO THE SENTENCE. The sentence as it is should use preterite.


I agree, because without additional information, the context is already fully comprised within the sentence itself.

I wouldn't advise a student faced with an exam to dream up nonexistent scenarios.


----------



## Lurrezko

St. Nick said:


> I agree, because without additional information, the context is already fully comprised within the sentence itself.
> 
> I wouldn't advise a student faced with an exam to dream up nonexistent scenarios.



The original question is:



> If I were to say: 'I listened to 4 BBC mundo podcasts for 45 minutes.' in Spanish would escuchar be in the imperfect or preterite?​



Both are correct and meaningful by themselves, it's just a matter of context.

Saludos


----------



## Peterdg

It took me a while to react because I wanted to find an anology that would make the point clear.

If, in English, we were to ask which option is correct:"Today I ... (to go) to the cinema"

A. went
B. will go​
I guess you will agree with me that the question is absurd. As native speakers you will say that both can be correct and that it depends on the context and what you want to say.

It is exactly the same with the question that was asked by the original poster. Both are correct and it just depends on the context and what he wants to say. 

The argument you are quoting that there is a specified time frame and hence it imposes the indefinite, is a bogus argument. I could as well argue that the action is not punctual: it took 45 minutes and hence defend that it must be the imperfect. That would be equally absurd. There is no reason why one argument would prevail over the other.

This is only an example. There are a dozen other considerations that may determine the speaker's choice, but once again, it's up to the speaker to decide.


----------



## St. Nick

Yes, grammar leaks, and finding a loophole in just about any rule of grammar doesn’t exactly require rocket science. All the same, to leave a student treading water because of the exception that proves the rule doesn’t strike me as a thoughtful teaching strategy.

The time frame in this particular instance is so well delineated that the sentence does not lend itself easily to the Spanish imperfect. Nor does the situation. Still, if this were the case, its English counterpart would more than likely have initially been expressed in the past progressive.


----------



## SevenDays

I too would say:
_*Escuché* 4 podcasts de la BBC durante 45 minutos_

In my admittedly subjective view of the world:
The _*imperfect*_ "escuchaba" is incompatible with a complement that is *of* *limited duration*, precisely because the *imperfect* suggests *ongoingness*. We can't just dismiss "durante 45 minutos" as irrelevant because this adverbial phrase *limits*, *sets boundaries*, so that we can no longer refer to something that is "ongoing." On the other hand, the *preterite* suggests *completion* and therefore fits with the idea that something ("the listening") is _completed_ ("after 45 minutes.") The imperfect may be used, but in a different context, one in which the action is habitual:
_*Escuchaba* 4 podcasts de la BBC durante 45 minutes *todas las mañanas*_
The ongoingness of _*escuchaba*_ links to the ongoingness of *todas las mañanas*; the completion expressed by "durante 45 minutes" is confined to its own internal structure .

If I wanted to link to thetemporal limits imposed by "durante 45 minutes," I'd use estar + gerundio:
_*Estuve escuchando* 4 podcasts de la BBC *durante 45 minutos*_.
"Estuve" sets inflectional *limits* on the ongoingness of "escuchando," so that the gerund no longer suggests something that continues indefinitely in the past; therefore, _*estuve escuchando*_ is compatible with *durante 45 minutos*.

The analogy to the English *Today ... I (to go) to the cinema* is misleading; the sentence leaves out a crucial adverbial modifier, so that one could say "today I went/was going/am going/will go to the cinema." In English, aspect is commonly divided between the *progressive form* (*he is eating*, *he was eating*) and the non-progressive* he eats*. Aspectuality, however, focuses on whether actions are _durative _(imperfective) or _non-durative_ (perfective) in nature: the progressive form represents *imperfective *aspectuality, and so are other structures that suggest ongoingness: _he_* keeps working*; s_he_* kept on talking*; _they_* continued to work*, _we_* could go on and on*, etc. *Perfective *aspectuality is expressed by simple and compound verbs which, just like Spanish, indicate an action _as a whole_, _completed_: _I *killed* the thief_; _she *gave* him a book_; _they *have built* a house_, etc. *He eats *and_ *he is eating*_ are *imperfective*, but *he eats an apple* is _perfective_ because, soon enough, there won't be any more apple to eat.  
So, a more appropriate English analogy would be:
*Today ... I (to go) to the cinema for 45 minutes, then came home.*
Because the action is _perfective_,the answer can only be:
*Today I went* *to the cinema for 45 minutes, then came home.*
It would be *semantically illogical* to say "_Today, I *was going* to the cinema for 45 minutes, then came home_" because the progressive/imperfective "was going" clashes with the durative limits imposed by the adverbial "for 45 minutes, then came home." It is the same *semantic illogicality* that is at issue in the Spanish example.

Cheers


----------



## ribran

SevenDays said:


> It would be *semantically illogical* to say "_Today, I *was going* to the cinema for 45 minutes, then came home_" because the progressive/imperfective "was going" clashes with the durative limits imposed by the adverbial "for 45 minutes, then came home." It is the same *semantic illogicality* that is at issue in the Spanish example.
> 
> Cheers



I can think of a context in which this sentence would work, but it assumes that the person never arrived at the cinema. 

Let's say the only way to the cinema was a moving sidewalk that operated in the opposite direction to that in which the person wanted to go. He hopped onto the sidewalk, thinking he could run faster than the sidewalk, but ended up stuck in the middle, unable to exceed the speed of the sidewalk. The indefatigable man kept it up for 45 minutes before deciding to throw in the towel.


----------



## SevenDays

ribran said:


> I can think of a context in which this sentence would work, but it assumes that the person never arrived at the cinema.
> 
> Let's say the only way to the cinema was a moving sidewalk that operated in the opposite direction to that in which the person wanted to go. He hopped onto the sidewalk, thinking he could run faster than the sidewalk, but ended up stuck in the middle, unable to exceed the speed of the sidewalk. The indefatigable man kept it up for 45 minutes before deciding to throw in the towel.



whoa..you are using _context_? the get out of jail free card?
cheeky!


----------



## ribran

I know! The nerve, right?


----------



## Lurrezko

SevenDays said:


> The imperfect may be used, but in a different context, one in which the action is habitual:
> _*Escuchaba* 4 podcasts de la BBC durante 45 minutes *todas las mañanas*_
> The ongoingness of _*escuchaba*_ links to the ongoingness of *todas las mañanas*; the completion expressed by "durante 45 minutes" is confined to its own internal structure .



That's a very shrewd explanation, Sevendays. However, if the imperfect may be used, _but in a different context_, you were already imagining a context in which the preterite might be used. You think of a context in every choice you make. Let's say the OP wants a translation for an isolated sentence, i.e. an exam. That's a context. But we don't have any context, maybe the OP is writing a short story, or answering a question. In those scenarios, you can say _Escuchaba la BBC durante 45 minutos_ without additional information: context and your own temporal perspective advise you to do so. 

It strikes me as odd that we urge the _foreros_ to provide a context in every thread, over and over, and in this particular question we are assuming the lack of it, thus dismissing a perfectly possible use. Without context, I honestly think we cannot provide a definitive answer.

Saludos


----------



## donbill

Let's imagine two contexts:

1. A student who is studying in Spain is talking about his daily routine, perhaps describing it in a telephone conversation to a friend back home.

_*Me levanto a las ocho. Desayuno a las ocho y media. Camino 15 minutos a la parada de autobuses. Tengo que cambiar de autobuses dos veces, pero finalmente llego a la universidad a eso de las 10:00. Estudio dos horas, ya que mi primera clase no comienza hasta las doce. Esto es lo que hago de lunes a viernes.
*_
2. The same student has returned to his native country and is describing what his routine in Spain *was like* to another friend.

_*Me levantaba a las ocho. Desayunaba a las ocho y media. Caminaba 15 minutos a la parada de autobuses. Tenía que cambiar de autobuses dos veces, pero finalmente llegaba a la universidad a eso de las 10:00. Estudiaba dos horas, ya que mi primera clase no empezaba hasta las doce. Esto es lo que hacía de lunes a viernes.
*_
In version 2, he might use adverbs such as _'siempre', 'normalmente', 'generalmente'_, etc., but he wouldn't have to. Most grammarians (including those who authored the _NGLE_) stress that the _pretérito imperfecto_ can do for the past everything that the present indicative can do for the present. I see nothing unusual about the _imperfecto_ in the second context, in spite of the specific temporal references that it contains, but I'd like to hear comments from those who don't share my views.

Although I see the point of those who consider the_ indefindo_ to be the more likely choice in the context of the original post (in fact, I'm of the same opinion), I agree with Peterdg and Lurrezko that it all depends on context and on the message that the speaker wants to convey.

It's a fascinating topic for us non-natives!

Saludos a todos


----------



## Istriano

_*He escuchado* 4 podcasts de la BBC durante 45 minutos_.  (No importa cuando: ya los he escuchado, hoy, esta semana, este mes, este año, una vez en mi vida...).


----------



## SevenDays

Lurrezko said:


> That's a very shrewd explanation, Sevendays. However, if the imperfect may be used, _but in a different context_, you were already imagining a context in which the preterite might be used. You think of a context in every choice you make. Let's say the OP wants a translation for an isolated sentence, i.e. an exam. That's a context. But we don't have any context, maybe the OP is writing a short story, or answering a question. In those scenarios, you can say _Escuchaba la BBC durante 45 minutos_ without additional information: context and your own temporal perspective advise you to do so.
> 
> It strikes me as odd that we urge the _foreros_ to provide a context in every thread, over and over, and in this particular question we are assuming the lack of it, thus dismissing a perfectly possible use. Without context, I honestly think we cannot provide a definitive answer.
> 
> Saludos



Hello

The point is that context* has already been provided *~ *for 45 minutes*. I'm not imagining that context; it exists; it's part of the original sentence, however short that sentence may be. I don't understand why *durante 45 minutos *is being dismissed so readily so that it can be replaced by whatever context one can think of to use the imperfect. A different matter altogether is if we are asked "should I say _escuché o escuchaba 4 podcasts de la BBC?"_ because then context is non-existent. I added a different example, not to suggest that _anything goes_, but to show under what circumstances the imperfect fits. This isn't a matter of "rules," nor of syntax; it's a question of semantics. Context is key, yes, but if context is_ already given_, I dare say we end up confusing people if we just ignore what's already there.

But, as I said earlier, this is my point of view, and it goes as far as it goes.

Cheers


----------



## St. Nick

Here is the information provided in the statement:

_"I listened to four BBC Mundo podcasts for 45 minutes."_

The sentence does not say _'I was listening.'_ No hint of reported speech is evident.  And, taking into consideration that Estudiantebueno is beginning to learn Spanish verb tenses, most would find it unlikely that he _'used to listen'_ to BBC Mundo on a regular basis.

Because this is a grammar rather than linguistics forum, showboating the _perfective_ and _imperfective_ is less than helpful to a student that is striving to gain command of the fundamentals.


----------



## donbill

With all due respect, St. Nick, I disagree. I don't think it's showboating to alert even a beginning student to the importance of context and to its role in tense selection. I would also say that linguistic analysis often makes grammar understandable by providing a reasoned and reasonable basis, not just rule memorization, for specific points of usage.

I hasten to add that I'm not simply trying to be argumentative. I enjoy and value your contributions to the forum. It just seems that we just don't see eye to eye on this issue.

Saludos


----------



## St. Nick

I don’t feel that terms employed in linguistics have been used to any benefit in this thread.  Students familiar with the vernacular would have no need to ask the question in the first place. Applying verb tenses during exams is standard fare for foreign language students, and contriving an infinite number of possible but unprovided contexts during the process would be an exercise in futility.


----------



## roanheads

donbill said:


> With all due respect, St. Nick, I disagree. I don't think it's showboating to alert even a beginning student to the importance of context and to its role in tense selection. I would also say that linguistic analysis often makes grammar understandable by providing a reasoned and reasonable basis, not just rule memorization, for specific points of usage.
> 
> I hasten to add that I'm not simply trying to be argumentative. I enjoy and value your contributions to the forum. It just seems that we just don't see eye to eye on this issue.
> 
> Saludos



hi don,
 Sorry,I also agree with the " indefinido " camp.
I see this as a clear statement. The writer describes an individual action of listening to the BBC during the context of a fixed period which completely ended after 45 minutes, ----which calls for " escuché.
But obviously there are other opinions.
Saludos.


----------



## donbill

Greetings, roanheads!

You may have noticed that in my previous post (#19), I said I agree that the _indefinido_ is certainly the more likely choice for the context of the OP. I believe, however, that the contrasts between the _indefinido_ and the _imperfecto_ are too often reduced to statements of arbitrary (though useful) rules that can actually impede fully understanding this troublesome point of grammar. I even believe that it's easier to understand the linguistic underpinning involved here than it is to memorize all of the rules that derive from it. (I'll have to add that I'm still trying to master the issue myself and that I fully expect to go to my grave without having done so! It's a real challenge, a bit like climbing Ben Nevis by the Water Slide route.)

I don't think anything is lost by taking such posts as far as we can; indeed, I think much is gained by doing so.

Saludos


----------



## ribran

St. Nick,

I can understand your desire to keep this thread free of linguistic jargon, but the examples presented by Peterdg et al. () are hardly abstruse or far-fetched (unlike, say, the example I gave early this morning ). 

Anyway, I agree with you that in this case, _escuché _​is probably the more appropriate choice.


----------



## Peterdg

St. Nick said:


> And, taking into consideration that Estudiantebueno is beginning to learn Spanish verb tenses, ...
> 
> Because this is a grammar rather than linguistics forum, showboating the _perfective_ and _imperfective_ is less than helpful to a student that is striving to gain command of the fundamentals.


 Especially for a beginning student of Spanish it's important to see that the choice between the indefinite and the imperfect is a contextual choice. That is the very first fundamental they should learn!!!


----------



## SevenDays

I found this at my local university library. Take it for whatever it's worth:

Real Academia Española
Nueva Gramatica de la Lengua Española
Morfología Sintaxis, I
p. 1759
23.12k

*"...los adjuntos temporales construidos con la pauta <<durante + grupo nominal cuantificativos>> son característicos de los predicados atélicos: {trabajar ~ *llegar} durante un par de horas.*"

This makes sense. The infinitive "trabajar" is abstract in nature; it has no explicit or implicit end point, which is the definition of _*atélico*_. The adjunct "durante un par de horas" simply sets boundaries on the _duration_ of that abstraction. Similarly, we could say "escuchar 4 podcasts de la BBC durante 45 minutos." ("Llegar," however, is problematic; it does have a natural end point and therefore _llegar durante un par de horas_ makes no sense.)

p.1759
23.12k
*"Cuando los predicados atélicos se construyen con pretérito imperfecto, los adjuntos del tipo <<durante + grupo nominal cuantificativo>> introducen una forma de delimitación incompatible con el aspecto imperfectivo ... El pretérito imperfecto de sentido iterativo o habitual está libre de esta restricción." 
*This makes sense too. The imperfect is _ongoing_, it has no natural end-point; it is _*atélico*_. That's its nature. As I said earlier, it is illogical, in this context, to limit the imperfect with "durante 45 minutos" when the imperfect, by its very nature, is ongoing. The ongoingness of the imperfect, however, is compatible with the ongoingness of a habitual action.

There is a context provided ("durante 45 minutes") and it is precisely that context that calls for the simple past _*escuché*_.

Cheers
p.s.
I should've added the examples used by RAE when talking about the incompatibility of the imperfect + durante, for full disclosure:
_Se {*llevaban ~ llevaron} mal durante algunos años _(should be _llevaron_)
_Su hija {*estaba ~ estuvo} enferma durante varios meses _(should be _estuvo_)


----------

