• He was sitting on the bench.
  • He sat on the bench.

What is the difference in the meaning between those two?

All I could find on Google was that the first alternative most of the time is preferable when talking about a specific time.

I was taught that you use the -ing form when something happens when something else already occurs. For example, "he was sitting on the bench WHEN the tree fell." But in this case I do not understand why the first sentence is correct.

  • in this case I do not understand why the first alternative is correct Can you tell us what the case is please because your question does not not make much sense at the moment.
    – BoldBen
    Jul 1, 2020 at 20:08

1 Answer 1


Regarding the "was sitting" version of your sentence, Strunk & White's The Elements of Style has this to say:

participial phrase A present or past participle with accompanying modifiers, objects, or complements. The buzzards, circling with sinister determination, squawked loudly.

participle A verbal that functions as an adjective. Present participles end in -ing (brimming); past participles typically end in -d or -ed (injured) or -en (broken) but may appear in other forms (brought, been, gone).

"He was sitting on the bench" indicates the state that the subject was in during a specific time period. On the other hand, in the sentence "He sat on the bench" the verb "sat" is in the simple past, which indicates an event that happened in the past with no reference to its duration or continuation.

So your example ("He was sitting on a bench WHEN the tree fell") is appropriate because the participial phrase "was sitting" indicates his state of being when and immediately before the tree fell.

Conversely, "He sat on a bench when the tree fell" would mean that he sat down at the same time the tree fell (or as a direct result of the tree falling), which is a different sentence entirely.

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