# I've played this game twice.



## IlyaTretyakov

Can we say, "I've played Elden Ring twice" to show that we completed the game two times?
Or is it necessary to say, "I've completed Elden Ring twice"? If the latter, why?


----------



## Welsh_Sion

I don't know the game, but my feeling is that,

"I've played Elden Ring twice (before)"

could indicate that you have only played the game before - twice - and reached a particular level/points score on those separate occasions. You don't necessarily have had to have reached the maximum points/finished the highest level possible.

Whereas, if you've _completed Elden Ring_ twice my interpretation is that you can't go any further with the game: you've finished the final level possible and/or you have the maximum possible score, so the only thing you can do is start a new game.

Are those reasonable interpretations?


----------



## lingobingo

“I’ve played the game twice” means what it says. It doesn’t reveal whether you “completed” the game, but that would be the natural assumption – especially on the part of someone who had no idea what sort of game you were talking about. But if you wanted to convey specifically that you had completed the whole game twice, you’d say that. You wouldn’t use an expression that didn’t actually provide that information.

I’ve played it twice = I’ve been a player of that game twice
I’ve played it twice, all the way through = I’ve completed that game twice


----------



## JulianStuart

lingobingo said:


> But if you wanted to convey specifically that you had completed the whole game twice, you’d say that. You wouldn’t use an expression thta didn’t actually provide that information.



I have a couple of video games I've only played twice or three times.  I've never completed any of them.
(I also have some that I _have_ "completed" - that meaning depending on the game and the goal)


----------



## Myridon

I think it's fair to say that the members of this website are not very familiar with computer games.  Elden Ring is the sort of game that takes over 50 hours of playing time to finish.  In that sort of case, we would assume that "played it twice" would not mean finished it twice as it would generally take many playing sessions over several weeks to finish it.  If it's the sort of game you could finish in a few minutes or even an hour or two, we might assume "played it twice" means finished it twice or possibly more than twice.
It's very dependent on context.  If you say "I've played tennis twice.", you might have played three games on one day and two games on another day. People usually play several games of tennis in one session.


----------



## JulianStuart

IlyaTretyakov said:


> Can we say, "I've played Elden Ring twice" to show that we completed the game two times?
> Or is it necessary to say, "I've completed Elden Ring twice"? If the latter, *why*?


Because in English there is (still) no verb form that indicates completion of an action.  Yet again it's context, logic and clarity.


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

lingobingo said:


> I've played it twice = I’ve been a player of that game twice
> I’ve played it twice, all the way through = I’ve completed that game twice


I've read it twice = I've been a reader of that book twice (never finished)
I've read it twice, all the way through = I've completed that book twice

If that is wrong, you have to admit there is no *logic* in English aspects.
The first key word is *logic*. The second key words are *in English aspects*. 
Because, the meaning depends on the verb being used, but you don't have an imperfect sense for many verbs. 
to play a game - imperfect sense
to read a book - perfect sense 

Why on earth.... 



lingobingo said:


> “I’ve played the game twice” means what it says.


----------



## JulianStuart

IlyaTretyakov said:


> to play a game - imperfect sense
> to read a book - perfect sense


Those are both ambiguous outside their context.  Both can mean complete or not.  If you ask "Why?" the answer is simply "This is English not Russian."


----------



## lingobingo

I’m not sure what point you’re making? When you say you’ve done something twice, that indicates how many times you’ve done it. How you describe the action itself is up to you. You can say it in a way that either does or doesn’t specify in detail what you mean. That’s your choice. Don’t blame the language if you don’t explain it fully! 

I’ve read that book twice. (leaves your listener to assume you mean the whole book, which is entirely likely)​I’ve read that book twice, from cover to cover. (leaves your listener in no doubt)​


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

lingobingo said:


> I’m not sure what point you’re making?





lingobingo said:


> Don’t blame the language if you don’t explain it fully!


You're trying to make a point. But actually you haven't even tried to understand what I meant. It's a big problem. One explains people something, they don't even try to understand the meaning of that. I do think it is kind of supercilious.


----------



## Roxxxannne

IlyaTretyakov said:


> Can we say, "I've played Elden Ring twice" to show that we completed the game two times?
> Or is it necessary to say, "I've completed Elden Ring twice"? If the latter, why?


"I've played Elden Ring twice" is ambiguous.  If it takes a very long time to play, and you want to be sure people understand that you completed it, you'd say 'I finished Elden Ring twice' or 'I completed Elden Ring twice' or something like that.

'Play' does not in itself mean 'play completely'.

"I've read that book twice" probably means that you finished it.  But if you want to be clear about it, you'd say "I've read _Moby-Dick_ twice, cover to cover." or "I've read -- well, started to read -- _Moby-Dick_ twice.  I could not get past page 50 or so."

If you are talking about a short book and you say "I've read _Goodnight Moon _672 times" it will be understood that you read the entire book all those times.


----------



## Roxxxannne

Did I understand what you are asking?  I'm asking sincerely.


----------



## Welsh_Sion

Every language has its own logic, be it Russian, English, Welsh, Icelandic or Swahili. If a foreign language does not conform to our understanding of how (our own) language works, we should not decry that other language for being 'illogical'. Rather, we should appreciate it, for that is what makes it 'foreign' to us - but not to its own native speakers. This is the very richness of language and languages and we should embrace our differences (as well as our commonalities.)

@lingobingo  was highlighting the reasoning her language of English provides as the 'answer' to your question. That it doesn't match the logic of how Russian, say, or Welsh, even 'work' in that context, is irrelevant. If the question is one of English grammar, then what is in that language, is, and is valid in English. To that end, I think others on this thread have answered your question both fairly and correctly. If I am wrong, then please feel free to correct me and tell us what more you expect of us. Thank you.


----------



## JulianStuart

Roxxxannne said:


> "I've played Elden Ring twice" is ambiguous.  If it takes a very long time to play, and you want to be sure people understand that you completed it, you'd say 'I finished Elden Ring twice' or 'I completed Elden Ring twice' or something like that.
> 
> 'Play' does not in itself mean 'play completely'.
> 
> "I've read that book twice" probably means that you finished it.  But if you want to be clear about it, you'd say "I've read _Moby-Dick_ twice, cover to cover." or "I've read -- well, started to read -- _Moby-Dick_ twice.  I could not get past page 50 or so."
> 
> If you are talking about a short book and you say "I've read _Goodnight Moon _672 times" it will be understood that you read the entire book all those times.


Another nice explanation of how English works, but Ilya _seems_ to want English to have verb forms that Russian has, and seems to think that their absence form English is "illogical".  It's just different. I wonder if this message will ever get through.


----------



## Roxxxannne

JulianStuart said:


> Another nice explanation of how English works, but Ilya _seems_ to want English to have verb forms that Russian has, and seems to think that their absence form English is "illogical". It's just different. I wonder if this message will ever get through.


Yes.  In #12, I am trying to find out what in our explanations doesn't make sense, rather than what in our langauge doesn't make sense.


----------



## JulianStuart

Roxxxannne said:


> Yes.  In #12, I am trying to find out *what in our explanations doesn't make sense*, rather than what in our langauge doesn't make sense.


That would indeed be good to understand


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

Roxxxannne said:


> Did I understand what you are asking?  I'm asking sincerely.


Yes, you did, at least you tried to. Thank you. 




Welsh_Sion said:


> If a foreign language does not conform to our understanding of how (our own) language works, we should not decry that other language for being 'illogical'. Rather, we should appreciate it, for that is what makes it 'foreign' to us - but not to its own native speakers. This is the very richness of language and languages and we should embrace our differences (as well as our commonalities.)


I do love English, I learn it every day for many hours while going to and from work. I enjoy learning it so much! And *I appreciate everyboby who helps me on this great forum. Your help can't be overestimated*. 
It's just that I want my son to complete one book every two weeks. 
So, he has to read his book every day, otherwise he won't succeed. 
He's been doing it greatly for the last half a year, but I have to check his progress every day (or several times a week). 
I'm just disappointed that I can't, having come back home, ask my son "Have you already read your book today?", because it means the whole thing! It's irritating! Of course, I can ask him, "Have you already read any of your book today?", but if I don't want to go into redundant details, indeed, for God's sake, I'm not asking him, "Have you already completed your book today?". 
And why on earth 'to play a video game' doesn't mean to complete the thing, but 'to read a book' does! But after all this, when I bring this topic, everybody keeps talking to me as if it were me who is crazy.


----------



## Welsh_Sion

Try not to get over-anxious - either for yourself or your son. Many of us are still learning English (I speak as one whose native tongue is NOT English, but natives will also tell you that they never completely learn everything about their language either.)

Think of the idea of what you and your son do learn and how you can use that together and separately with others and with native speakers. I never thought it appropriate to say to my language students (usually adults who I taught Welsh, English and French to) that we had to finish a particular chapter or a book in any given lesson. If they understood the grammar and vocab. and context behind the lesson and could express themselves with the idea that they could also understand responses from others, then we could all be pleased with ourselves.

I'm sure you are proud of what you and your son have already achieved and will continue to do so as you progress. Just don't expect the language you are learning to be similar in its structures and grammar to your own! Good luck.


----------



## JulianStuart

IlyaTretyakov said:


> And why on earth 'to play a video game' doesn't mean to complete the thing, but 'to read a book' does! But after all this, when I bring this topic, everybody keeps talking to me as if it were me who is crazy.


They can *both* mean *either*.  It *is* that simple.  Examples have been given for many of these verbs (play, read, climb, build etc). It depends on context (both the words in the sentence and knowlege of the situation at hand) and logic how much clarification is needed to exclude the other possibility.


----------



## Roxxxannne

IlyaTretyakov said:


> Yes, you did, at least you tried to. Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> I do love English, I learn it every day for many hours while going to and from work. I enjoy learning it so much! And *I appreciate everyboby who helps me on this great forum. Your help can't be overestimated*.
> It's just that I want my son to complete one book every two weeks.
> So, he has to read his book every day, otherwise he won't succeed.
> He's been doing it greatly for the last half a year, but I have to check his progress every day (or several times a week).
> I'm just disappointed that I can't, having come back home, ask my son "Have you already read your book today?", because it means the whole thing! It's irritating! Of course, I can ask him, "Have you already read any of your book today?", but if I don't want to go into redundant details, indeed, for God's sake, I'm not asking him, "Have you already completed your book today?".
> And why on earth 'to play a video game' doesn't mean to complete the thing, but 'to read a book' does! But after all this, when I bring this topic, everybody keeps talking to me as if it were me who is crazy.


If in this particular context you both know that he's supposed to read _part_ of a book, I think it would be okay to say "Have you already read your book today?"  since everyone involved knows it doesn't mean the whole book (except on the day when he finishes it).
Or you could practice various ways of saying the same thing in English and ask "Have you done your reading for today?" or "How many pages did you read in your book?" or "Did you read any of your book today?"
And you could be subtle and ask "What happened today in the book you're reading?"

Context, in video games and books, is crucial.  If the video game can be completed in one sitting, then listeners who know that (or listeners who expect video games not to take very long), will assume that "I played XYZ twice" means that you completed the game twice (or that you ran out of lives twice). 

If listeners know it takes 50 hours of playing time to complete, then "I've played InfiniteCandySaga twice" could mean either that you tried it twice and got bored and quit, or that you actually got all the way through all 203 levels.  I'd assume you meant you tried it twice, because if you had spent 100 hours playing one video game I would expect you to want me to know, and so I'd expect you to say "I got all the way through InfiniteCandySaga twice!"

(I don't think you're crazy, by the way. )

Cross-posted (I typed slowly).


----------



## dojibear

IlyaTretyakov said:


> Can we say, "I've played Elden Ring twice" to show that we completed the game two times?
> Or is it necessary to say, "I've completed Elden Ring twice"? If the latter, why?


It is necessary to say "completed". Why? Because "played" does not mean "completed".
"Played" means "spent one session playing", whether that session lasts 20 minutes or 5 hours.

Some games (especially games against an opponent) are designed to be completed in one session of play.
At the "end of the game" there is a winner and a loser. For example: chess, checkers, dominoes, etc.

But the phrase "a game of" does not apply to things that require 40 hours to finish. Although we call them "games", they are something different than checkers or monopoly.

I've played computer games that required 40 or more hours to complete. For example, _Nox_ and _Ultima 9._ I've played computer games that have no end. For example _WoW _and other MMORPGs. Each time that *I played*, I played for a couple of hours.


----------



## JulianStuart

IlyaTretyakov said:


> I'm just disappointed that I can't, having come back home, ask my son "Have you already read your book today?", because it means the whole thing! It's irritating! Of course, I can ask him, "Have you already read any of your book today?", but if* I don't want to go into redundant details,* indeed, for God's sake, I'm not asking him, "Have you already completed your book today?".


It's only in Russian that they might be redundant.  *In English, they're not redundant - they may even be required.*  You may find it irritating that English doesn't have those forms, just like I might find it irritating learning Russian and wanting to convey the meanings that English articles can.  Please, we don't think you are crazy, you just have unrealistic expectations of how English verbs can convey (or not) the meaning you intend, and seem to have difficulty abandoning those expectations.


----------



## dojibear

IlyaTretyakov said:


> It's just that I want my son to complete one book every two weeks.
> So, he has to read his book every day, otherwise he won't succeed.


The verb "to read" referring to books, has one pattern of use ("rules for using"?).
The verb "to play" referring to short games (checkers, monopoly), has a different use.
The verb "to play" referring to long RPGs that we call "games", has a different use.


----------



## tracer2

For your future use:

See #17
_1 - "I do love English, I learn study) it every day for many hours while going to...._
(Huge difference between learn/study)

2 - Do you question your son in English or Russian about his reading?  *If in English*, you can say:
*"Did you read some of your English book today?" * Seems to me, the word "some" takes care of your anxiety over whether you meant only part of the book was read or whether the entire book was read (and finished).

--->  obviously, you only meant "some of the book" not all of it. 
If you ask him in Russian, then I don't know how you could ask him this.


----------



## JulianStuart

tracer2 said:


> For your future use:
> 
> See #17
> _1 - "I do love English, I learn study) it every day for many hours while going to...._
> (Huge difference between learn/study)
> 
> 2 - Do you question your son in English or Russian about his reading?  *If in English*, you can say:
> *"Did you read some of your English book today?" * Seems to me, the word "some" takes care of your anxiety over whether you meant only part of the book was read or whether the entire book was read (and finished).
> 
> --->  obviously, you only meant "some of the book" not all of it.
> If you ask him in Russian, then I don't know how you could ask him this.



It just occurred to me that one might even suggest that inserting "some of" (or equivalent, resembling a suffix) into these constructions comes close to creating an "imperfective" verb form for English


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Another tense that could provide a suitable way of asking your son about his reading is the present perfect continuous "Have you been reading your book?". Another not very subtle way of asking could be to ask how far he's got in his book. An even better way could be to familiarise yourself with the plot, if need be, and ask what's happened, a sort of reading comprehension approach, more conversation than inquisition.

The somewhat amusing side of your frequent complaints about English tenses is that the verb/tense system appears to reflect an obsession with expressing the relationship between events and time, compared with other languages.
Language changes over time according to the needs of those who speak it. We can see various changes happening but not it seems with the continuous aspect apart from an increase in use of the present continuous in some 'stative' verbs, such as 'love'.


----------



## JulianStuart

JulianStuart said:


> It just occurred to me that one might even suggest that inserting "some of" (or equivalent, resembling a suffix) into these constructions comes close to creating an "imperfective" verb form for English


Extending this thought, if Ilya is happy that Russian has special characters that add to or modify the verb to create these different verb forms (and doesn't regard _them_ as redundant), we can see that English may already have them: "imperfective" add "_some of"_ after the verb while for the "perfective" add "_all of"_ after the verb.  I've provided a worked example of this "conjugation" 

I have played all of Elden Ring twice.
I have played some of Elden Ring twice.


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

First, I'd like to thank all of you you has replied here.
Welsh_Sion, JulianStuart, Roxxxannne, dojibear, tracer2, lingobingo, Hermione Golightly. Thank you all.



JulianStuart said:


> I have played all of Elden Ring twice.
> I have played some of Elden Ring twice.



*If only things were that simple*. There are many problems that seem to be unseen until you find them. If all you wrote is true, then how to explain this sentence?

Alex read a book while Amy watched TV.
After all that was said, this is completely *in*correct sentence(I know it isn't) unless he read the whole one, it should be either
1) Alex read *some of* a book while Amy watched TV.
or
2) Alex *was *read*ing* *(*_some of_*)* a book while Amy was watching TV.
But, I got so surprised and upset when I found this sentence in English Grammar in Use, Oxford, Raymond Murphy. Because it got me thinking about completion _again_.

1. *Why *don't they use continuous?
2.* Why *don't they add 'some of'(or something like this)?
3. How can we respond to that sentence? Can we ask, "What book did Alex read?" wondering what the book it was or this must be the continuous aspect, if so (*4*) why Murphy keeps saying we should remain the same aspect making questions?
5. Can we say, "Alex shouldn't have read that book!" or, again, this is wrong?


se16teddy said:


> If you read something, you (will) have read it. (And you (will) have it read.) If you *do* anything, you became the KIND OF PERSON who *has done* it.


6. Can we apply this *"*rule*"* to Alex (Alex read a book while Amy watched TV = Alex has read the book) or is it totally incorrect?

Those six(and more) questions keep appearing when the person who was told, "just add 'some of" comes across such sentences as,
"_Alex *read a book* while Amy watched TV_",
"_Alex *read a book* for ten minutes_",
"_Alex *read a book* from 12:20 to 12:30_",
"_Alex *read a book* until he fell asleep_"
where you necessarily must either use *the past continuous* or add "*some of*", but neither in those kinds of sentences is done by everyone.

just add "some of" unless you aren't willing to -- this is how it seems

Please, before answering about things which are obvious for you, think about what I mean.


----------



## JulianStuart

IlyaTretyakov said:


> First, I'd like to thank all of you you has replied here.
> Welsh_Sion, JulianStuart, Roxxxannne, dojibear, tracer2, lingobingo, Hermione Golightly. Thank you all.
> 
> 
> 
> *If only things were that simple*. There are many problems that seem to be unseen until you find them. If all you wrote is true, then how to explain this sentence?
> 
> Alex read a book while Amy watched TV.
> After all that was said, this is completely *in*correct sentence(I know it isn't) unless he read the whole one, it should be either
> 1) Alex read *some of* a book while Amy watched TV.
> or
> 2) Alex *was *read*ing* *(*_some of_*)* a book while Amy was watching TV.
> But, I got so surprised and upset when I found this sentence in English Grammar in Use, Oxford, Raymond Murphy. Because it got me thinking about completion _again_.
> 
> 1. *Why *don't they use continuous?
> 2.* Why *don't they add 'some of'(or something like this)?
> 3. How can we respond to that sentence? Can we ask, "What book did Alex read?" wondering what the book it was or this must be the continuous aspect, if so (*4*) why Murphy keeps saying we should remain the same aspect making questions?
> 5. Can we say, "Alex shouldn't have read that book!" or, again, this is wrong?
> 
> 6. Can we apply this *"*rule*"* to Alex (Alex read a book while Amy watched TV = Alex has read the book) or is it totally incorrect?
> 
> Those six(and more) questions keep appearing when the person who was told, "just add 'some of" comes across such sentences as,
> "_Alex *read a book* while Amy watched TV_",
> "_Alex *read a book* for ten minutes_",
> "_Alex *read a book* from 12:20 to 12:30_",
> "_Alex *read a book* until he fell asleep_"
> where you necessarily must either use *the past continuous* or add "*some of*", but neither in those kinds of sentences is done by everyone.
> 
> just add "some of" unless you aren't willing to -- this is how it seems
> 
> Please, before answering about things which are obvious for you, think about what I mean.


OK - I understand you will never be able to learn English properly if you cling to your "logic" and insisting on trying to communicate clarity of (in)completion without using clarifying words to ensure accuracy.  As for sentences where a continuous verb is used, the action is in progress and LOGICALLY CANNOT BE COMPLETE so they are IRRELEVANT to the "some of or all of" concept.  I give up trying to help.


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

JulianStuart said:


> As for sentences where a continuous verb is used, the action is in progress and LOGICALLY CANNOT BE COMPLETE so they are IRRELEVANT to the "some of or all of" concept.


I don't even know what you said that for. I agree with this and have never had an argument against.


----------



## Roxxxannne

In the absence of tenses that have to do with completion or lack of completion, English has several options:
Alex read more of his book while Amy wrote a TV script.
Alex read another chapter in his book/the book he was reading while ...
Alex plowed ahead in his book ...
Alex continued to read his book ...
Alex finished the book he was reading ...

We make do with what we have.


----------



## JulianStuart

Post #28 was full of examples with continuous. You are still arguing discussing why English is irritating to you.
Alex read a book while Amy watched TV. 
You say it's incorrect but there's nothing wrong with this sentence.  The while makes it abundantly clear that this is the same meaning as the continuous form.  And the (in)completeness is based on context and what has been said many times about reading a book/playing a game/building a house/climbing a miuntain/painting a room: if the state of completion is important and not clear from the context/situation, THAT's when the _some of_ or _all of_ come into play in English.  For you (and Russians in general?) the concept of not specifying (in)completeness may seem hard to live with, perhaps because they automatically/subconsciously think it MUST mean one or the other, as it would be in Russian?  In Russian, I presume you have to choose the "right" verb form to use such verbs, while we don't.


----------



## Myridon

IlyaTretyakov said:


> "_Alex *read a book* while Amy watched TV_",


It is in the context and learned cultural assumptions.  We can tell the the context is a single session that is probably less than four hours (a long time to watch TV without stopping). We know that Amy didn't watch "all of TV" and it's very unlikely that Amy watched TV for long enough for Alex to read an entire book and that, likewise, Alex wouldn't normally read a whole book in one session (unless we know that Alex is a child who might read very short books).


----------



## JulianStuart

Roxxxannne said:


> We make do with what we have.


 With no obvious adverse effects


----------



## Roxxxannne

JulianStuart said:


> With no obvious adverse effects


On us, at least.


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

JulianStuart said:


> Alex read a book while Amy watched TV.
> You say it's incorrect but there's nothing wrong with this sentence.


I haven't said it is incorrect. Please, do not take words out of the context. You, as nobody else, should know that.

This is what I said.


----------



## JulianStuart

In those cases we *don't need to* insert "all of" or "some of" - *that*'s what we have been trying to tell you (and no-one has said you _have to_ do it all the time).  It's only for people who interpret read as always meaning completion that we would need to do that.  English speakers do not interpret that word as always meaning completion.  We go by expectation, logic, context etc. * IF *those are *insufficient*, *THEN* we would (ourselves as native speakers) add "some of" or "all of".

What did you do on that long train journey?
I read a book.
A whole one or just some of one?

What did you do on that long train journey?
I read a whole book.
Oh, which one?


----------



## lingobingo

It was a long train journey. Weren‘t you bored?
No, I was fine. I read my book.

That’s all you need to say. We all know what it means.


----------



## JulianStuart

lingobingo said:


> It was a long train journey. Weren‘t you bored?
> No, I was fine. I read my book.
> 
> That’s all you need to say. We all know what it means.


 
And we _don't_ think of asking right away - "Did you finish it?"


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

JulianStuart said:


> English speakers do not interpret that word as always meaning completion.





lingobingo said:


> It was a long train journey. Weren‘t you bored?
> No, I was fine. I read my book.


Very grateful! You completely answered the first two of my questions. But what about 3, 4, 5 and the most important 6?


----------



## Roxxxannne

Who does 'they' refer to in 1 and 2?


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

Roxxxannne said:


> Who does 'they' refer to in 1 and 2?


It was discussed above about the sentence "Alex read a book while Amy watched TV". #28


----------



## Roxxxannne

IlyaTretyakov said:


> It was discussed above about the sentence "Alex read a book while Amy watched TV". #28


So 'they' refers to grammar books?


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

Roxxxannne said:


> So 'they' refers to grammar books?


'they' refers to the people who wrote that sentence in English Grammar in Use, by Oxford.


----------



## Roxxxannne

IlyaTretyakov said:


> Very grateful! You completely answered the first two of my questions. But what about 3, 4, 5 and the most important 6?
> 
> View attachment 70686


In answer to 1), I take the question to be "why does _English Grammar in Use_ have, on page X, the sentence "Alex read a book while Amy watched TV"?
Given that grammar books provide specific sentences as illustrative examples of something they are trying to explain, what aspect of English grammar is that sentence supposed to illustrate?


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

Roxxxannne said:


> Given that grammar books provide specific sentences as illustrative examples of something they are trying to explain, what aspect of English grammar is that sentence supposed to illustrate?


They were showing that there's no difference between the past simple and the past continuous when we use "while".


----------



## JulianStuart

JulianStuart said:


> The while makes it abundantly clear that this is the same meaning as the continuous form.





IlyaTretyakov said:


> They were showing that there's no difference between the past simple and the past continuous when we use "while".


----------



## RM1(SS)

IlyaTretyakov said:


> 1. *Why *don't they use continuous?
> 2.* Why *don't they add 'some of'(or something like this)?


Because it's not required in English, and they didn't want to do either of those things.



IlyaTretyakov said:


> 3. How can we respond to that sentence? Can we ask, "What book did Alex read?" wondering what the book it was or this must be the continuous aspect, if so (*4*) why *does* Murphy keeps keep saying we should remain the same aspect making questions?


Either is good -- "What book was he reading?" or "What book did he read?"  (I would probably use the former.)

Do you mean (s)he says that if the original statement uses the past (or the continuous) tense, the question must use the same tense?  If so, (s)he is an idiot confused, or is trying to simplify matters for learners, or....


----------



## Roxxxannne

IlyaTretyakov said:


> They were showing that there's no difference between the past simple and the past continuous when we use "while".


So if the author is discussing 'read' and 'was reading,' they are not interested at the moment in whether Alex read some or all of his book. Whether Alex read all or some of the book has nothing to do with 'read' and 'was reading.'

I take it that Murphy says that when someone asks "What book did Alex read while Amy watched TV?" the answer should be "Alex read _Steal This Book."  _I suppose this is because the author thinks that  if the non-continuous version is used in the question, the answer should also use the non-continuous version. I don't think this is true in English-speaking reality.

Cross-posted and in agreement with RM1(SS).


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

JulianStuart said:


> English speakers do not interpret that word as always meaning completion.





lingobingo said:


> It was a long train journey. Weren‘t you bored?
> No, I was fine. I read my book.





RM1(SS) said:


> Either is good -- "What book was he reading?" or "What book did he read?"  (I would probably use the former.)
> 
> Do you mean (s)he says that if the original statement uses the past (or the continuous) tense, the question must use the same tense?  If so, (s)he is an idiot confused, or is trying to simplify matters for learners, or....


*OK. Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 are done. Great.*

There are two left: 5 and 6.


----------



## Roxxxannne

5.  Yes, we can say _Alex shouldn't have read that book!_
For instance, in these contexts:
_Alex shouldn't have read that book.  Now he won't be able to sleep because he'll be worrying about zombies all night.
Alex shouldn't have read that book.  He should have done his homework instead._

6.  _Alex has read a book _and _Alex read a book_ are two different tenses.  They aren't used in the same way and they don't mean exactly the same thing to someone who differentiates between the past and the present perfect.


----------



## JulianStuart

Roxxxannne said:


> 5.  Yes, we can say _Alex shouldn't have read that book!_
> For instance, in these contexts:
> _Alex shouldn't have read that book.  Now he won't be able to sleep because he'll be worrying about zombies all night.
> Alex shouldn't have read that book.  He should have done his homework instead._


 
And in neither case does the issue of "some of" or "all of" arise.  The focus is on the consequence and not how much of it he read.


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

Roxxxannne said:


> 5.  Yes, we can say _Alex shouldn't have read that book!_
> For instance, in these contexts:
> _Alex shouldn't have read that book.  Now he won't be able to sleep because he'll be worrying about zombies all night.
> Alex shouldn't have read that book.  He should have done his homework instead._
> 
> 
> JulianStuart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in neither case does the issue of "some of" or "all of" arise.  The focus is on the consequence and not how much of it he read.
Click to expand...

The picture is gradually getting better and better. 
Question 5 is done. We can say, "You shouldn't have read ..." for the action of reading (it's not necessarily that the object was completed). 

We have *only question 6 left*. 
One thing to clarify. 
If somebody were to ask you, "Have you *ever *repaired bike*s*?", would you start thinking whether those bike were ready afterward, or would you just think of the action of repairing that may have taken place in the past?


----------



## tracer2

IlyaTretyakov said:


> The picture is gradually getting better and better.
> Question 5 is done. We can say, "You shouldn't have read ..." for the action of reading (it's not necessarily that the object was completed).
> 
> We have *only question 6 left*.
> One thing to clarify.
> If somebody were to ask you, "Have you *ever *repaired bike*s*?", would you start thinking whether those bike were ready afterward, or would you just think of the action of repairing that may have taken place in the past?


_"...whether those bike were ready *afterward*,..."_

I don't understand what "time period" *"afterward*" refers to.  Can you explain?    
(After what?)


----------



## numerator

tracer2 said:


> _"...whether those bike were ready *afterward*,..."_
> 
> I don't understand what "time period" *"afterward*" refers to.  Can you explain?
> (After what?)


After the repairing, presumably.

I think Ilya's question is: 
If you asked someone "Have you ever repaired bikes?" and the person answered "yes": would assume that the person got a few broken bikes fixed and in good working order, or just that the person spent some time tinkering with some bikes but possibly without any success.


----------



## JulianStuart

In other words, did they complete the repairs or worked on the repairs but didn’t complete them?


----------



## numerator

JulianStuart said:


> In other words, did they complete the repairs or worked on the repairs but didn’t complete them?


Yes, I think that's what Ilya is asking: Which of these two situations would you associate with the question "Have you ever repaired bikes?"?


----------



## JulianStuart

numerator said:


> Yes, I think that's what Ilya is asking: Which of these two situations would you associate with the question "Have you ever repaired bikes?"?


In most contexts, people would understand the repairs were completed, _based on the meaning_ of the verb _repair_.   Like "Have you ever filled a gas/petrol tank?"  In the middle of the action "I am filling the tank"  but after completion "I have filled the tank".  It's not in the verb form, which can be used for both, it's context and situation/expectation etc.


----------



## RM1(SS)

IlyaTretyakov said:


> 5. Can we say, "Alex shouldn't have read that book!" or, again, this is wrong?
> 6. Can we apply this *"*rule*"* to Alex (Alex read a book while Amy watched TV = Alex has read the book) or is it totally incorrect?


Yes.

Also yes -- but most people would probably take that simple statement as meaning he has completed the book, so something would have to be added if he hasn't.


----------



## tracer2

It sounds more and more to me like we’re on a wild goose chase here…..looking for something that doesn’t exist.

That a simple English sentence like:

*"Have you ever repaired bikes?"* could cause such a ruckus borders on the absurd.

Why would that sentence *-in any way* *– *be associated with ”some” idea of having *finished repairing* (one or more) bikes?  Or with any idea other than the simple statement of “ever repaired?”

You may as well ask: Does the phrase “repaired bikes” associate or imply in your mind that the bikes were *all made in China*? Or that the bikes *were for sale?* Or that the bikes, of course, could *only be sold to Christians*? Or that half the bikes in question *were made for females and the other half for males??* Or….Or….?

The entire thread sounds like a passage out of a Dostoevsky novel conceived just as he is about to be fusilladed in a Gulag for some crime or other and this laughable repartee of ours crashed through his mind in a rush of madness.

It was interesting to learn that unlike English, some Russian verbs have a wider horizon of meanings than the equivalent English verb.

But other than that, the ideas put forth, with all due respect, are not only totally without merit….they are totally meaningless......Looking for a problem where none exists.


----------



## JulianStuart

tracer2 said:


> It was interesting to learn that unlike English, some Russian verbs have a wider horizon of meanings than the equivalent English verb.



It is not that they have a broader range of meanings, rather they are _marked_ by verb endings to reflect the_ degree of completion_ - read _part of_ a book or read _the complete_ book.  English does not have such verb inflections, so Ilya has been confused about how we can tell/express the degree of completion (context, logic, situation, extra words etc).


----------



## Simplicity

Reading this thread makes me feel more and more confused and scared. I might be scared away from learning any foreign language.

For a learner of English, I would like share  my opinions and at the same time clear my head a bit. These are my understandings of the question "Have you ever repaired bikes?"

 1. Have you ever had such an experience? It is hard work(or easy work or dirty work).
2. Do you now have such an ability(from your experiences of have successfully repaired bikes)to repair a bike? If you do, can you take a look at mine? It's broken.

On the other hand, it also makes a learner happy and gives them confidence to go further seeing the efforts you guys put in to help us. I am Really Really grateful! Thanks.😊


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

tracer2 said:


> *"Have you ever repaired bikes?"* could cause such a ruckus borders on the absurd.



I asked exactly what I meant. What could be simplier than this? 


IlyaTretyakov said:


> If somebody were to ask you, "Have you *ever *repaired bike*s*?", would you start thinking whether those bike were ready to use, or would you just think of the action of repairing that may have taken place in the past?


----------



## JulianStuart

The question _specifically_ asks about the past, so any action of repairing is necessarily in the past.  Repeir generally means to _complete_ the repairs, so the _choice_ in your question doesn't really make sense: it's not an either/or situation.


----------

