Job Discussion Forums

[dakelei]

A student of mine accosted me on QQ the other night and asked me about the following question in a test practice book he was teaching to some of his high school students. I was just as puzzled as he was. Here�s the question:

I met her in 2007 when we _________ together at the same company.

A. are working
B. have worked
C. were working
D. worked

I�m a relatively well-educated university graduate and decently well read but I don�t claim to be any sort of grammar genius. It seems to me there are two answers that are, at the very least, not �wrong.� The practice book, however, insists there is only one correct answer. To those of you here who are well-versed in the intricacies of English grammar: What do think the �correct� answer is and why? Thanks for taking the time to answer this.

[it'snotmyfault]

My book says we often use the past progressive together with simple past to show an action that was going on around a past time.

So I'd go for C, were working

Does "worked" imply that you both only worked there in 2007, when one or either of you could in fact have been there for x amount of time.

I don't know for sure, I'm not a grammar guru either.

[vikeologist]

It'snotmyfault is correct, thus proving the monkey with a typewriter maxim.

It's C.

You use the past progressive / continuous for the background action or event, the past simple for the shorter or more important action or event.

The main focus of the sentence is that the two people met each other.

[choudoufu]

do this be is a engrish test plactice bookret writed by chinesers?

methought so.

[it'snotmyfault]

[GreatApe]

I agree with "C" ... although GRAMMATICALLY there ARE two correct answers!

Answer "D" is just as grammatically correct if, for example, the sentence is being spoken at a funeral where one of the people (a girl) --who the other person met in 2007-- is now deceased. The sentence offers no context (beyond "met") as to why the past progressive would be favored over the simple past tense in such a situation. It's actually not much of a grammar "problem" at all. There are two possibilities and no larger context; it's a problem to do with the textbook.

This wouldn't happen to be a "Longman Target English" textbook, would it?

Gawd ... how I HATE the second edition of "Longman Target English!" It is so bad that it literally started grammatical arguments in my school last year because it was wrong so frequently, or it offered two "correct" possibilities and no context to the question.

We changed textbooks this year and dropped "Longman Target English" entirely.

--GA

[roadwalker]

If I were taking the exam I would mark C, but if speaking, I might have said 'worked'.

[hilena_westb]

Two answer?

Nobody sees the verb "met" ?

This sentence is clear in its answer ... when having another verb, the rule of grammar is to continue the tense. "were working" and "worked" are HARDLY the same tense. ONLY ONE matches the tense of "met"

uggggggggg

[johntpartee]

I'm not sure either. "Were" and "met" are both past tense, the action verb is a gerund. "Met" and "worked" agree in tense......

I think "were working" sounds best.

[vikeologist]

certainly answer D isn't grammatically wrong. I should have said this.

Generally speaking C is the better tense to use in written English. I accept that the majority of English speakers may, like Roadwalker, use the past simple in spoken English. It is a bad question.

Unlike, for instance, Spanish or French, there are no completely definitive rules for English. It's a living and evolving language. I used to work with a teacher who said, 'well, there are no rules, so we're both right'.

Except that we weren't both right.

hilena. I think I understand what rule you're talking about. Basically, in prose, one should stick to the same 'base' tense. I could write my novels in the present simple, I could have written my novels in the past simple, but I won't do both. (Deliberate car crash of a sentence).

However, to suggest that a sentence can't contain 2 different tenses.


With the differences between English in different countries, and oral versus written English, there are grey areas, but there has to be some kind of benchmark. For me that's Practical English Usage by Michael Swan. Maybe you prefer something else, but we can't just make up our own grammar rules.

Gerund Jesus, this is depressing. I only responded to this thread to take a cheap shot at it'snotmyfault. Now I'm using smilies like a wannabe tweenie to offset my horror at some of these replies.

[roadwalker]

[muffintop]

http://www.englisch-hilfen.de/images/tenses/past_progressive2e.jpg

Can't post images. Using this forum always makes me feel like it's 1998.

[johntpartee]

[Lancy Bloom]

Be thankful these kinds of questions make your students feel they will never learn English. They keep us in the business. I say simple past tense also because it obeys the rule of verb congruency.
Grammar should not be taught until students know 1,600 words and it should be taught by having students write. Grammar teaching causes students to stop talking because they are always trying to figure out the rule.
Easy to teach though and easy to test.

[muffintop]

Going with C. were working.

Congruency is not a strong point to make for this question imo. Not on a test anyway.Past progressive and simple past are often used together to clarify time and which action was still ongoing and which completed during that timeframe. Ditto with past perfect and simple past.

here...

.......|...................|......................|.....
(start work) (meet) (finish working)

Working at the company was not a completed action at the time they met so simple past can not be used. It was an ongoing action in the past, so we use past progressive. Meet has a start and a finish in the past so we use simple past.

I am not certain if I am correct or not...I am never certain about grammar..but this is the logic I would use to explain it.