-1

This is an example of simple past usage I stumbled upon on YouTube:

"Sarah and David talked for two hours"

It is not clear to me why present perfect or past continues are not used here instead of past simple or can all of these tenses be used correctly? "For two hours" specifies a duration of time and "for" is also a signal word used in present perfect tense and past continues tense. I thought past simple is used for finished actions, but in this example, the action was in progress. So why is this sentence correct?

|improve this question
  • Talking can be either thought of as a single act or a protracted activity. – Greg Lee May 15 '18 at 21:20
  • Sorry, but I don't understand, what does this tell me? – Marko Savic May 15 '18 at 21:31
  • All the forms you mentioned are okay: "have talked, were talking, talked". – Greg Lee May 15 '18 at 21:46
  • The simple past is used to talk about an action or event that is finished; that is excluded from the present. It does not matter if the action occurred over a specific/given time period or duration of time: that whole time period or duration took place in the past; it did not continue to the present. It is similar to They talked from 4pm to 6pm and you say this at 8pm. The duration from 4 to 6pm is over/finished. – 9fyj'j55-8ujfr5yhjky-'tt6yhkjj May 15 '18 at 21:48
  • So, then the sentences "Sarah and David talked for two hours" and "Sarah and David were talking for two hours" have the same meaning in this case? – Marko Savic May 15 '18 at 21:52
0

The simple past implies the action took place in the past and is now finished.

If the action (conversation) is still in progress, then I think "Sarah and David had been talking for two hours" would be better.

|improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.