# past continuous + (for) five minutes



## duden

Hi,
pls what does look better?

"She was working in her room five minutes."
or
"She was working in her room for five minutes."

Does it stand the same for the use of the past continuous tense as it does for the present perfect continuous? (like "I have been waiting here for five minutes." should be grammatically more correct than "I have been waiting here five minutes.")

Thank you


----------



## Dimcl

duden said:


> Hi,
> pls what does look better?
> 
> "She was working in her room five minutes."
> or
> "She was working in her room for five minutes."
> 
> Does it stand the same for the use of the past continuous tense as it does for the present perfect continuous? (like "I have been waiting here for five minutes." should be grammatically more correct than "I have been waiting here five minutes.")
> 
> Thank you


 
Under no circumstance is your first sentence correct.  Only the second sentence would be acceptable.


----------



## The Scrivener

duden said:


> Hi,
> pls what does look better?
> 
> "She was working in her room five minutes."
> or
> "She was working in her room for five minutes."
> 
> Does it stand the same for the use of the past continuous tense as it does for the present perfect continuous? (like "I have been waiting here for five minutes." should be grammatically more correct than "I have been waiting here five minutes.")
> 
> Thank you


 
Normally we keep the same rule for the past continuous.  "I have been waiting here for the bus for five minutes."


----------



## kenny4528

duden said:


> Hi,
> pls what does look better?
> 
> "She was working in her room five minutes."
> or
> "She was working in her room for five minutes."


 
Hi. Sorry for asking this. But I think the order of wording should be:
_Which looks better?_
or
_Which one looks better?_

*Right?*


----------



## The Scrivener

kenny4528 said:


> Hi. Sorry for asking this. But I think the order of wording should be:
> _Which looks better?_
> or
> _Which one looks better?_
> 
> *Right?*


 
Right.


----------



## kenny4528

The Scrivener said:


> Right.


 
Thank for your reply.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

duden said:


> Hi,
> pls what does look better?
> 
> "She was working in her room five minutes."
> or
> "She was working in her room for five minutes."
> 
> Does it stand the same for the use of the past continuous tense as it does for the present perfect continuous? (like "I have been waiting here for five minutes." should be grammatically more correct than "I have been waiting here five minutes.")
> 
> Thank you


 
Nobody's said much about the second part yet, Duden.

I hope your books explain that in BE we differentiate sharply between a block of time in the past - *she was working (or she worked) in her room for five minutes,* and time leading up to a particular moment - *she had been working in her room for five minutes when the bomb went off.*

Notice the very different tense usage.


----------



## elektroowca

I'd like to revive the thread to ask more about the context: seeing the sentence I automatically thought of using Past Simple or Present Perfect instead of Past Continuous, depending on context.
Will someone be so kind as to give examples of the situations in which those three tenses can (if, indeed they can) be used in the sentence given in the original thread?


----------



## MiriamArg

Hello, elektroowca.

Here are a few examples:

1. Past simple.
She worked in her room for five minutes and then went downstairs for dinner.

2. Present perfect.
She's worked in her room for five minutes and she is tired already.

3.Past continuous.
She was working in her room for five minutes only, but her brother thought that was too long.

I'm not quite happy with the last example but nothing better came to my mind. Hopefully, someone else will contribute a more illustrative sentence.

Cheers!

M.


----------



## elektroowca

Thanks so much for your contribution.
May I ask what is your opinion on using Past Continuous in the original sentence (without any additional info given)?It's just I can't quite see the reason for using this tense if nothing follows?


----------



## Phil-Olly

elektroowca said:


> Thanks so much for your contribution.
> May I ask what is your opinion on using Past Continuous in the original sentence (without any additional info given)?It's just I can't quite see the reason for using this tense if nothing follows?



I think you're right.  The original question doesn't give us the context, so possibly there's a justification that neither you nor I have thought of.

It seemed to me that you could have:

"She has been working in her room for five minutes and she hasn't switched the radio on yet."

"She had been working in her room for five minutes when he knocked at the door."

But "She was working in her room for five minutes ..." has me stumped!  Possibly because the time period is so short.  It would sound quite natural to say, "Irene is studying hard for her exams.  She was working in her room for five whole hours yesterday."


----------



## shorty1

I doubt if "She was working in her room for five minutes." is grammatically correct.

What is your opinion?


----------



## coolieinblue

shorty1, yes, that's correct. It indicates her plan or arrangement set at a certain point of past time. (=She was going to work in her room for five minitues)


----------



## shorty1

Hello coolieinblue. 

Didn't the sentence mean past continuous(progress)?


----------



## coolieinblue

No. That's illogical.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

_She was working in her room for five minutes_ means _she spent five minutes working in her room_.


----------



## shorty1

Hello Thomas Tompion. 

past continuous and present continuous are possible to express 'duration'?


----------



## coolieinblue

Thomas Tompion said:


> *She was working in her room for five minutes *means _she spent five minutes working in her room_.


I can't find any occasion where I should say the above.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

That's odd.  Maybe someone asked how long she spent working in her room.  It would be a perfectly correct answer.


----------



## shorty1

Thank you for double-checking. 

I am aware that past continuous can express duration only in the case of meaning 'repeated past actions'.

By the way, I was actually surprised a bit that the sentence was possible to sound natural to native speakers apart from grammar.


----------



## coolieinblue

"How long did she spend working in her room?" - This could be the question?


----------



## coolieinblue

She was working for 5 minutes in her room.
She was working for 5 minutes in a day.

Those above can make sense for me.

Very sorry. It's about time I went to bed.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

shorty1 said:


> [...]I am aware that past continuous can express duration only in the case of meaning 'repeated past actions'.



Whoever told you this, Shorty?  I don't think one can be aware of something which isn't true, and this isn't true.  Here's the first grammar site I found on the point:

The past continuous  is used to describe actions which continued over a period of time in the past. This period can be expressed with a time expression, or a clause with another verb in the past continuous tense. In this case the two actions were happening simultaneously at the same time:I *was looking* for you all day  yesterday.
He *was staying* in Rome that summer.

Notice it says nothing about 'repeated past actions'.
​


----------



## Hermione Golightly

> I am aware that past continuous can express duration only in the case of meaning 'repeated past actions'.



Hi Shorty

I am not sure this is correct, in fact I am quite sure it is not. I am sure that the past continuous can be used for on-going activity in the past whether truly continuous at that time or describing a frequent activity during that period in the past.

"We were living in Paris at that time and I was going to French lessons 4 times a week"

I wonder what you are thinking of?


Hermione


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

shorty1 said:


> I am aware that past continuous can express duration only in the case of meaning 'repeated past actions'.



The above may be true for some types of verbs whose action has a very short duration, like blinking or jumping. If Betty was jumping for five minutes, she must have been jumping up and down repeatedly for five minutes, as a single jump lasting five minutes is not normally possible.


----------



## shorty1

Hello Hermione Golightly, Wilma_Sweden and Thomas Tompion again. 


I'll quote my grammar book about 'repeated past actions' taking the form of 'past continuous'.
//
However, we can use the past continuous, particularly in spoken English, when we want emphasize that repeated actions went on for a limited and temporary period of past time:
To lose weight before the race, I wasn't eating any sweets or biscuits for weeks.
//

But in this case, "I was working." means "I was in the middle of working at a particular point of time.", I think. (This expresses only progressive aspect.)
Likewise I was working for 30 minutes means I was in the middle of working for 30 minutes.(I think this is grammatically incorrect because progressive aspect itself is basically impossible to have duration.)


This is my opinion.
I hope this makes sense.


----------



## shorty1

Hello coolieinblue. 

I think to indicate that the act of her working lasted unceasingly for a length of time, it would be more apt to say "She had been working in her room for 5 minutes."


----------



## Thomas Tompion

shorty1 said:


> Hello Hermione Golightly, Wilma_Sweden and Thomas Tompion again.
> 
> 
> I'll quote my grammar book about 'repeated past actions' taking the form of 'past continuous'.
> //
> However, we can use the past continuous, particularly in spoken English, when we want emphasize that repeated actions went on for a limited and temporary period of past time:
> To lose weight before the race, I wasn't eating any sweets or biscuits for weeks.
> //
> 
> But in this case, "I was working." means "I was in the middle of working at a particular point of time.", I think. (This expresses only progressive aspect.)
> Likewise I was working for 30 minutes means I was in the middle of working for 30 minutes.(I think this is grammatically incorrect because progressive aspect itself is basically impossible to have duration.)
> 
> 
> This is my opinion.
> I hope this makes sense.


Hello Shorty,

Your book is right.  The past continuous can be used in this way.

Your interpretation of it is wrong, I'm afraid.  The past continuous is not being used in this way in "How long did she spend working in her room?", and you were quite wrong to conclude that "the past continuous can express duration only in the case of meaning 'repeated past actions'".

I think what has happened is that you've taken one particular way in which it CAN be used and concluded that it is the ONLY way in which it is used.

I suspect you need to concentrate on the simple uses of the past continuous, and it is commonly used to express duration, and forget the more unusual uses until you've mastered the simple ones.


----------



## shorty1

Thomas Tompion said:


> Hello Shorty,
> 
> Your book is right. The past continuous can be used in this way.
> 
> Your interpretation of it is wrong, I'm afraid. The past continuous is not being used in this way in "How long did she spend working in her room?", and you were quite wrong to conclude that "the past continuous can express duration only in the case of meaning 'repeated past actions'".
> 
> I think what has happened is that you've taken one particular way in which it CAN be used and concluded that it is the ONLY way in which it is used.
> 
> I suspect you need to concentrate on the simple uses of the past continuous, and *it is commonly used to express duration*, and forget the more unusual uses until you've mastered the simple ones.




Thank you for your advice, Thomas Tompion. 


I admit I made a mistake as you said.

I don't think I have understood what you mean yet.
So I don't know what situation "She was working in her room for two hours." is used in.

For example,
How long had she been working in her room at that time?
She had been working in her room for two hours.
or
How long had she worked in her room at that time?
She had worked in her room for two hours.
or
How long did she work in her room?
She worked in her room for two hours.

These are the ones that I can come up with.


"I was looking for you all day yesterday."-I think this applies to a repeated action.

"He was staying in Rome that summer."-I think 'that summer' can be a point of time like this: 'that summer' of childhood summers.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

It's difficult, Shorty, because you raise so many questions at once.  I'll just treat two of them:


shorty1 said:


> How long had she been working in her room at that time?
> She had been working in her room for two hours.  This one is strange because of the 'at that time'; I wonder what 'at that time' means in this context.
> or
> How long had she worked in her room at that time?
> She had worked in her room for two hours. Same problem: the 'at that time' is odd.
> or
> How long did she work in her room?
> She worked in her room for two hours. No problem.


I wonder why you've suddenly introduced this 'at that time'.  It raises questions which were not present in your original OP.



shorty1 said:


> "I was looking for you all day yesterday."-I think this applies to a repeated action.


I don't know why you say this is a repeated action.  We've told you that this means I spent all day yesterday looking for you.  This use of the past continuous to present continuous action is standard.


----------



## Keith Bradford

*Detective*: What was Miss Smith doing at the time of the murder?
*Witness*: She was working in her room for five minutes at least, from 10.25 to 10.30.  But after that I can't be sure.


----------



## shorty1

Thomas Tompion said:


> It's difficult, Shorty, because you raise so many questions at once. I'll just treat two of them:
> 
> I wonder why you've suddenly introduced this 'at that time'. It raises questions which were not present in your original OP.
> 
> I don't know why you say this is a repeated action. We've told you that this means I spent all day yesterday looking for you. This use of the past continuous to present continuous action is standard.




Sorry to bother you, Thomas Tompion.


I was meant to say that like this:
"How long had she been working in her room when you arrived home(=at that time)?"

If this is grammatically incorrect, It's ok that 'at that time' is omitted.
I just used that sentence to contrast "how long was she working in her room?"-Isn't this grammatically incorrect?


"I was looking for you all day yesterday."
I meant I was looking for you before breakfast. And after eating breakfast, I was looking for you again until lunch. And after eating Lunch, I was looking for you until dinner...
I mean the act of my looking for you lasted with stopping.

"I was looking for you for 3 hours(or for 12 hours or for 24 hours)."
Is the above sentence usually used in a daily life?

"I had been looking for you for 3 hours."-Isn't this a general usage?


----------



## shorty1

Keith Bradford said:


> *Detective*: What was Miss Smith doing at the time of the murder?
> *Witness*: She was working in her room for five minutes at least, from 10.25 to 10.30. But after that I can't be sure.




Hello Keith Bradford.
Thank you for your answer. 


*Detective*: What was Miss Smith doing at the time of the murder?
*Witness*: She was working in her room.
*Detective*: How long?
*Witness*: She worked(or had been working) for five minutes at least, from 10.25 to 10.30. But after that I can't be sure. 

Isn't this more appropriate conversation?

"I'm (or was) doing my homework for 2 hours."
Does this sound natural to you?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

shorty1 said:


> Sorry to bother you, Thomas Tompion.
> 
> 
> I was meant to say that like this:
> "How long had she been working in her room when you arrived home(=at that time)?"
> 
> If this is grammatically incorrect, It's ok that 'at that time' is omitted.
> I just used that sentence to contrast "how long were you working in her room?"
> It's important to distinguish between a stretch of time leading up to a particular moment - she had been working for four hours when... (i.e. for the four hours previous to the when moment)
> 
> and a stretch of time with no reference to its start or finish - she worked (or was working) for four hours.
> 
> "I was looking for you all day yesterday."
> I meant I was looking for you before breakfast. And after eating breakfast, I was looking for you again until lunch. And after eating Lunch, I was looking for you until dinner...
> I mean the act of my looking for you lasted with stopping.
> 
> "I was looking for you for 3 hours(or for 12 hours or for 24 hours)."
> Is the above sentence usually used in a daily life?  Yes, entirely.
> 
> "I had been looking for you for 3 hours."-Isn't this a general usage?_ Certainly, but that's time leading up at a particular moment again_.



The point about time leading up to a particular moment is vital.  Look at your grammar book on that, Shorty.


----------



## Keith Bradford

shorty1 said:


> ..."I'm (or was) doing my homework for 2 hours."
> Does this sound natural to you?



Both are perfectly possible, but obviously with different meanings:

_"What are you doing tomorrow?" -- "I'm doing _[= it is planned that I will do...] _my homework for 2 hours from 5 till 7, but after that I'll be free."
"What were you doing yesterday?" -- "I was doing my homework for 2 hours from 5 till 7, and after that I was free."_


----------



## coolieinblue

shorty1 said:


> Hello coolieinblue.
> 
> I think to indicate that the act of her working lasted unceasingly for a length of time, it would be more apt to say "She had been working in her room for 5 minutes."


No, definitely not. Yours and mine each has very different indications.


----------



## shorty1

Thank you, Thomas Tompion, Keith Bredford and coolieinblue. 

I've understand cearly.

"I was looking for you for 3 hours(or for 12 hours or for 24 hours)."
Is the above sentence usually used in a daily life? Yes, entirely.

_"What were you doing yesterday?" -- "I was doing my homework for 2 hours from 5 till 7, and after that I was free."_

These are good enough proofs that I was wrong.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

One of the key things you must remember, Shorty, is that there are two tenses which when used with _for + a length of time_ signal time leading up to a moment.

The* present *perfect (leading up to the *present*) - _I have been reading for two hours_ - i.e. I am reading and started reading two hours ago. _I have been here for two hours_ - I am here and arrived here two hours ago.

The *past *perfect (leading up to a moment in the *past*) - _I had been reading for two hours _- i.e. I was reading and started reading two hours previously. _ I had been there for two hours _- I was there and arrived there two hours previously.


----------



## shorty1

Thomas Tompion said:


> One of the key things you must remember, Shorty, is that there are two tenses which when used with _for + a length of time_ signal time leading up to a moment.
> 
> The* present *perfect (leading up to the *present*) - _I have been reading for two hours_ - i.e. I am reading and started reading two hours ago. _I have been here for two hours_ - I am here and arrived here two hours ago.
> 
> The *past *perfect (leading up to a moment in the *past*) - _I had been reading for two hours _- i.e. I was reading and started reading two hours previously. _I had been there for two hours _- I was there and arrived there two hours previously.




Thank you for the explanation in detail. 

I've understood.

How do you think the above past perfect continuous sentence differs from "I was reading for two hours."?

Sorry, I need to go to bed. In Korea time, It's 3 am.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

shorty1 said:


> Thank you for the explanation in detail.
> 
> I've understood.
> 
> How do you think the above past perfect continuous sentence differs from "I was reading for two hours."?
> 
> Sorry, I need to go to bed. In Korea time, It's 3 am.


I* was *reading _for two hours_ - block of time in the past, X............X.

I* had been* reading _for two hours_ - block of time leading up to a particular moment, X................->.

You've got to distinguish between these two phenomena.  They are very different.

You say you've understood, but your question suggests that you haven't.

Use your grammar book.  It must explain the difference.


----------



## shorty1

Thomas Tompion said:


> I* was *reading _for two hours_ - block of time in the past, X............X.
> 
> I* had been* reading _for two hours_ - block of time leading up to a particular moment, X................->.



Sorry, Thomas Tompion. 

I've really understood.

I'm sure this time.


----------

