# I wrote a letter for an hour



## old woman

I've just read that it is not possible to say "I wrote a letter for three hours", but I've seen many examples like "I read the book for an hour" or "I watched the film for an hour".

What is the difference?

Is it because "I wrote a letter" is interpreted as having been completed and "I read a book for an hour" is not interpreted as completed, because reading a book usually takes longer than an hour?


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Hi, yes, that explanation sounds plausible. But the first sentence sounds a bit clunky anyway, and in context we'd probably rephrase it, depending on the intended meaning.  No-one says or writes anything out of context. There is always context.
I wrote a letter for three hours.   (I can't think of a question that this could be the natural answer to.)
_I spent three hours writing a letter.
It took me three hours to write a letter._


----------



## The Newt

old woman said:


> I've just read that it is not possible to say "I wrote a letter for three hours" ...


That's just not correct. The only problem with "I wrote a letter for three hours" is that few letters take that long to write. Where did you read this information?


----------



## old woman

The Newt said:


> That's just not correct. The only problem with "I wrote a letter for three hours" is that few letters take that long to write. Where did you read this information?


"A semantic and pragmatic examination of the English perfect". The author claims you can't combine accomplishment with an adverbial of time.  Do you think "I wrote a letter for half an hour" is correct?


----------



## old woman

Enquiring Mind said:


> Hi, yes, that explanation sounds plausible. But the first sentence sounds a bit clunky anyway, and in context we'd probably rephrase it, depending on the intended meaning.  No-one says or writes anything out of context. There is always context.
> I wrote a letter for three hours.   (I can't think of a question that this could be the natural answer to.)
> _I spent three hours writing a letter.
> It took me three hours to write a letter._


But do you think that "I read a book for an hour" is a correct and natural sounding sentence?


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Yes, that's ok. As you suggested in your first post, a book usually takes longer than an hour to read.


----------



## The Newt

old woman said:


> "A semantic and pragmatic examination of the English perfect". The author claims you can't combine accomplishment with an adverbial of time.  Do you think "I wrote a letter for half an hour" is correct?



"I wrote a letter for half an hour" sounds perfectly fine to me. You were engaged in that activity for thirty minutes, and probably finished it. "I wrote a _novel_ for half an hour" would be problematic.


----------



## old woman

The Newt said:


> "I wrote a letter for half an hour" sounds perfectly fine to me. You were engaged in that activity for thirty minutes, and probably finished it. "I wrote a _novel_ for half an hour" would be problematic.


Why is "I wrote a novel for half an hour" problematic and "I read a novel for an hour" not problematic if I haven't read the entire book?


----------



## old woman

Enquiring Mind said:


> Hi, yes, that explanation sounds plausible. But the first sentence sounds a bit clunky anyway, and in context we'd probably rephrase it, depending on the intended meaning.  No-one says or writes anything out of context. There is always context.
> I wrote a letter for three hours.   (I can't think of a question that this could be the natural answer to.)
> _I spent three hours writing a letter.
> It took me three hours to write a letter._


Does "I spent three hours writing a letter" imply the letter has been written?


----------



## Packard

old woman said:


> Does "I spent three hours writing a letter" imply the letter has been written?


That is how I would have written it. (Thank you, Enquiring Mind. ) But you need more information to finish the thought.

_I spent three hours writing a letter but finally I gave up.

I spent three hours writing a letter that I was happy with, but for all that effort it was just four sentences long._


----------



## old woman

Packard said:


> That is how I would have written it. (Thank you, Enquiring Mind. ) But you need more information to finish the thought.
> 
> _I spent three hours writing a letter but finally I gave up.
> 
> I spent three hours writing a letter that I was happy with, but for all that effort it was just four sentences long._


So it could also mean the letter hasn't been completed?


----------



## Packard

All it means is that you spent the time.  There is no indication on completion, or even starting.  Nor is there any indication on the quality of the letter.

_I spent three hours at the word processor and didn't turn out even one satisfactory sentence.

I spent three hours typing a letter and the final version was worse than the initial effort.  

I spent three hours typing a letter.  The final version was perfect; it was short and to the point:  You're fired._


----------



## kentix

I don't think "I wrote a letter for half an hour" is acceptable. But I'm having a hard time writing down why that's true.


----------



## old woman

Packard said:


> All it means is that you spent the time.  There is no indication on completion, or even starting.  Nor is there any indication on the quality of the letter.
> 
> _I spent three hours at the word processor and didn't turn out even one satisfactory sentence.
> 
> I spent three hours typing a letter and the final version was worse than the initial effort.
> 
> I spent three hours typing a letter.  The final version was perfect; it was short and to the point:  You're fired._


So it is possible to say: "I spent three hours writing a letter, but it isn't finished yet"?


----------



## The Newt

old woman said:


> Why is "I wrote a novel for half an hour" problematic and "I read a novel for an hour" not problematic if I haven't read the entire book?



That's a very good question. I'll have to think about that one.


----------



## old woman

kentix said:


> I don't think "I wrote a letter for half an hour" is acceptable. But I'm having a hard time writing down why that's true.


But do you think "I read a book for half an hour" or "I watched a film for an hour"is acceptable?


----------



## abluter

There is nothing wrong with "I wrote a letter for three hours" or "I wrote a novel for three hours", or "I tended my garden for five minutes" or "I (did anything) for (any amount of time)."  We must not however confuse that with "I wrote a letter *in* three hours", which means I had finished what I was doing in that time.


----------



## PaulQ

old woman said:


> I've just read that it is not possible to say "I wrote a letter for three hours".
> Is it because "I wrote a letter" is interpreted as having been completed and "I read a book for an hour" is not interpreted as completed, because reading a book usually takes longer than an hour?



Yes.

The advice is very general - it is not a rule. (See my signature, below.)

Compare, 
"I cooked the beef for three hours." or 
"I wrote for three hours" or 
"I wrote my diary for three hours" or 
"I was writing a letter for three hours", 
all of which are correct.

However, as you indicate, "I wrote a letter" implies completion _(I wrote a letter to my father and then I posted it.)_ as, to be a letter, it has to be complete. If it is not complete it is "part of a letter".


----------



## abluter

I disagree that "I wrote a letter for" implies completion, any more than "I wrote a novel for" implies completion. See my post #17 above.
Consider this; "How did you spend your day?" "Well, I took about half an hour to eat breakfast, I wrote a letter for three hours, I sat in the pub over lunch for two hours, I looked at my book on Rembrandt for ten minutes and was interrupted by a visit from a detested aunt who kept gassing about her will for the rest of the day". Anything wrong with that?


----------



## DonnyB

old woman said:


> I've just read that it is not possible to say "I wrote a letter for three hours", but I've seen many examples like "I read the book for an hour" or "I watched the film for an hour".
> 
> What is the difference?
> 
> Is it because "I wrote a letter" is interpreted as having been completed and "I read a book for an hour" is not interpreted as completed, because reading a book usually takes longer than an hour?


I'm having a hard time explaining why "I read the book for an hour" and "I watched the film for an hour" both work, but "I wrote a letter for three hours" doesn't - I think it sounds very odd.  It's nothing to do with whether the task was completed: both the book and the film examples strongly suggest to me that it wasn't.  Maybe it's simply that I've never heard anyone say it.


----------



## old woman

DonnyB said:


> I'm having a hard time explaining why "I read the book for an hour" and "I watched the film for an hour" both work, but "I wrote a letter for three hours" doesn't - I think it sounds very odd.  It's nothing to do with whether the task was completed: both the book and the film examples strongly suggest to me that it wasn't.  Maybe it's simply that I've never heard anyone say it.


The text book says you can't combine completion ( the letter has been written) with an adverbial of time.


----------



## abluter

Do you mean you can't say "This letter has been written in three hours."?


----------



## DonnyB

old woman said:


> The text book says you can't combine completion ( the letter has been written) with an adverbial of time.


I'm not altogether convinced by that.  You can just about say "I wrote emails for three hours", which leaves it open as to whether you finished them all or not.


----------



## old woman

DonnyB said:


> I'm not altogether convinced by that.  You can just about say "I wrote emails for three hours", which leaves it open as to whether you finished them all or not.


So "I wrote emails for three hours" is fine, but "I wrote a letter for an hour" isn't?


----------



## old woman

abluter said:


> Do you mean you can't say "This letter has been written in three hours."?


No, that sentence is correct.


----------



## The Newt

I think the reason that "I read a novel for three hours" works (for me) but "I wrote a novel..." doesn't is that we usually think of writing a novel as something you expect to complete (though of course that often doesn't happen). To pick up a book and read for three hours and not return to it for whatever reason seems more likely than "writing a novel" for three hours and not continuing with it another time. Writing a novel always implies sustained effort. You could say you "wrote _part of_ a novel for three hours."

So basically the distinction has nothing to do with grammar.


----------



## abluter

No, both are fine.  The statements are simply about what happened for a certain length of time. In neither is there any implication as to whether the activities were completed.


----------



## abluter

The Newt, why should you be expected to finish writing a novel when you sit down to it? You don't need to say you wrote part of the novel - it's nobody's business whether you wrote four chapters in three hours or only a sentence. It's just a statement of what you were doing for those three hours.


----------



## The Newt

abluter said:


> The Newt, why should you be expected to finish writing a novel when you sit down to it? You don't need to say you wrote part of the novel - it's nobody's business whether you wrote four chapters in three hours or only a sentence. It's just a statement of what you were doing for those three hours.



I'm not saying that you would be expected to finish it in three hours. Quite the opposite — we would assume that it couldn't be accomplished in one sitting. But being in the process of writing a novel seems to require sustained commitment over a long period of time; you could, however, pick up a novel and _read it_ casually for three hours and never get back to it.


----------



## abluter

I feel sure that everyone has been engaged on some project, like writing a novel or story or painting a big picture or painting the house white or dismantling the gearbox, and done it in shorter or longer bursts.  "I worked on my picture for an hour" etc. 
What has completion, or getting back to it later, got to do with it? "I worked on my picture for three hours, but I think I'll give it up - it's not going anywhere".


----------



## kentix

I think the idea of completion is mixed in and causes the difficulty.

My view:

1. I worked on a letter for three hours.  Quite vague. The listener has no idea whether the letter was completed. Shows the progressive nature of the activity.
2. I spent three hours writing a letter.  Much less vague. To me it strongly suggests the letter was finished and took three hours to write. But there is wiggle room. It shows the completion of a progressive activity - writing. The _activity_ was completed in three hours.
3. I wrote a letter for three hours.  This sounds like it mixes the idea of completion of a thing (not inherently measured by time) with an arbitrary length of time. I don't think that works.

"Worked on" (1) doesn't include the idea of completion. "Wrote" (3) does. Sentence 2 includes both ideas but in separate parts of the sentence.

Here is what I see as an example similar to 3.

- I ate my meal for three hours.

To me, I ate and I wrote have the same sense. It's simple past. The results were a wholly consumed meal and a wholly written letter. Adding the time in that manner doesn't work.

Another example:

- We traveled from here to Carson City for three hours.

Simple past - "we traveled to Carson City". There is nothing for the implied progressive sense "for <a length of time>" to apply to.

The same with the letter. With "wrote" there is no progressive sense to apply a time to.

An even more obvious example:

- We destroyed the obsolete ship for three hours.


----------



## kentix

abluter said:


> "I worked on my picture for three hours, but I think I'll give it up - it's not going anywhere".


Yes, but use the example form and see if that sounds okay.

- I painted a portrait of my mother for three hours.


----------



## abluter

"I painted a portrait of my mother for three hours" sounds fine to me. It means that was what I was doing for three hours, and doesn't imply that I finished it. If I had wanted to convey that, I would have said "I painted a portrait of my mother *in* three hours"


----------



## kentix

But there is no progressive idea in the sentence that "for" attaches to.

- I *was working* on (painting) the portrait of my mother *for* three hours.

Would you say, "I ate my sandwich for ten minutes"?


----------



## abluter

"I swam for an hour" and "I was swimming for an hour" mean the same, don't they?


----------



## old woman

kentix said:


> I think the idea of completion is mixed in and causes the difficulty.
> 
> My view:
> 
> 1. I worked on a letter for three hours.  Quite vague. The listener has no idea whether the letter was completed. Shows the progressive nature of the activity.
> 2. I spent three hours writing a letter.  Much less vague. To me it strongly suggests the letter was finished and took three hours to write. But there is wiggle room. It shows the completion of a progressive activity - writing. The _activity_ was completed in three hours.
> 3. I wrote a letter for three hours.  This sounds like it mixes the idea of completion of a thing (not inherently measured by time) with an arbitrary length of time. I don't think that works.
> 
> "Worked on" (1) doesn't include the idea of completion. "Wrote" (3) does. Sentence 2 includes both ideas but in separate parts of the sentence.
> 
> Here is what I see as an example similar to 3.
> 
> - I ate my meal for three hours.
> 
> To me, I ate and I wrote have the same sense. It's simple past. The results were a wholly consumed meal and a wholly written letter. Adding the time in that manner doesn't work.
> 
> Another example:
> 
> - We traveled from here to Carson City for three hours.
> 
> Simple past - "we traveled to Carson City". There is nothing for the implied progressive sense "for <a length of time>" to apply to.
> 
> The same with the letter. With "wrote" there is no progressive sense to apply a time to.
> 
> An even more obvious example:
> 
> - We destroyed the obsolete ship for three hours.


How do you feel about: "I read a book for an hour" or "I watched a film for an hour"? ( not completed)


----------



## abluter

Both those sound good to me.
It has just occurred to me that this difficulty may be due to the AmE/BrE divergence.


----------



## The Newt

kentix said:


> [...]
> 
> An even more obvious example:
> 
> - We destroyed the obsolete ship for three hours.


But "writing" implies natural duration more readily than "destroyed" does.

We wrote for three hours. 
We destroyed the ship for three hours. 
We worked on destroying the ship for three hours.


----------



## abluter

Yes, Kentix, post#34, I would say "I ate my sandwich for ten minutes, then I roused myself and walked along the pier for another ten."


----------



## kentix

*We destroyed** the ship for three hours.
We wrote the letter for three hours.*

I see simple past in both cases.

- We wrote for three hours. 

There is no object giving a sense of completion so that's fine with me. The focus is on the activity. What I'm saying is you can't focus on the onging activity and the end result of the activity in the same sentence.

- I ate my sandwich.  
- I ate for ten minutes. 
- I ate my sandwich for ten minutes.


----------



## abluter

Kentix, your "simple past" is not so simple. But I think we shall just have to disagree. What do you think of my suggestion that it might be an AmE/BrE divergence?


----------



## kentix

It could be. AE speakers are inclined more toward simple past than present perfect in many contexts.

I don't have a sense of whether that's true or not that it is specifically AE/BE. I haven't seen this question discussed before so I don't know if I represent my fellow speakers well or not.


----------



## The Newt

kentix said:


> [...]
> 
> - We wrote for three hours.
> 
> [...]



But why not "We wrote *letters / poems / folk songs* for three hours"? And if that's acceptable, why not in the case of one specific letter, completed or not?


----------



## old woman

kentix said:


> *We destroyed** the ship for three hours.
> We wrote the letter for three hours.*
> 
> I see simple past in both cases.
> 
> - We wrote for three hours.
> 
> There is no object giving a sense of completion so that's fine with me. The focus is on the activity. What I'm saying is you can't focus on the onging activity and the end result of the activity in the same sentence.
> 
> - I ate my sandwich.
> - I ate for ten minutes.
> - I ate my sandwich for ten minutes.


How do you feel about: "I read a book for an hour", Kentix?


----------



## kentix

Folk song*s* doesn't have that sense of a single completed item. It could indicated complete songs, partial songs or complete and partials song.

But "I wrote a song." has the sense of completion of one item. It's even more clear this way:

"I wrote a song last night."


----------



## The Newt

"You were alone for three hours? Weren't you bored? What did you do?"
"I wrote a letter."
"You wrote a letter _for three hours_??"
"It was a long letter."


----------



## DonnyB

old woman said:


> So "I wrote emails for three hours" is fine, but "I wrote a letter for an hour" isn't?


I just can't envisage a scenario in which anyone would say "I wrote a letter for an hour".  It might work as something like "I spent an hour writing a letter before I gave up as I couldn't think of anything else to say".  "I worked on the letter for an hour" is a possibility.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

I feel strongly that some of the sentences proposed are quite unrealistic. One thing English does is present refined communication about our relationship with time. I could easily say "I wrote my novel for an hour", but I'm more likely to say "I worked on my novel for an hour". Of course we are puzzled about why we don't say this or that when asked by non-native speakers about their invented sentences. It's quite simply because we don't express ourselves in a non-native way.


----------



## boozer

I agree with Abluter.
_I wrote a letter to my mother for three hours, then got tired, left it unfinished and went out for a walk._
Yes, it would be clearer to say _I spent three hours writing the letter_, but this does not invalidate the original - it is correct but requires context to work.


----------



## The Newt

I think we need to keep in mind the distinction between grammatical issues and issues concerning how we understand the nature of certain activities. There are only trivial grammatical differences among the following:

I wrote a letter for three hours.
I watched a soap opera for a half-hour.
I read a book for an hour.
I practiced an étude for forty minutes.
I wrote a novel for two days. []

There are, however, differences in our expectations of what can be accomplished in a set period of time, and in what things need to be accomplished at all. As I see it, reading a book for a short period doesn't necessarily imply that you finished it or will ever finish it; it's simply how you passed the time. Writing a letter, on the other hand, is probably something one could complete or substantially complete in three hours. The only one I object to is the last, because writing a novel implies a sustained commitment over a long period of time and an expectation that it will be completed (even though, as we know, many are abandoned).


----------



## old woman

boozer said:


> I agree with Abluter.
> _I wrote a letter to my mother for three hours, then got tired, left it unfinished and went out for a walk._
> Yes, it would be clearer to say _I spent three hours writing the letter_, but this does not invalidate the original - it is correct but requires context to work.


Boozer, does "I spent three hours writing the letter" imply the letter has been completed?


----------



## Leeeroy

"What did you do yesterday after I left?" "I wrote a letter for an hour then went to bed."

The letter's _probably_ unfinished but who knows. To imply you finished it: "I wrote a letter, (which) took me about an hour, then went to bed."


----------



## old woman

DonnyB said:


> I just can't envisage a scenario in which anyone would say "I wrote a letter for an hour".  It might work as something like "I spent an hour writing a letter before I gave up as I couldn't think of anything else to say".  "I worked on the letter for an hour" is a possibility


Does "I spent an hour writing a letter"imply the letter is finished?


----------



## SevenDays

old woman said:


> Does "I spent an hour writing a letter"imply the letter is finished?



The sentence doesn't imply that the letter is finished or not finished. The only person who knows whether the letter is finished is the speaker, and since he knows, he doesn't have to explicitly say that the letter is done. Of course, the rest of us are left to wonder about it.


----------

