States, which may be used as a general description for different states of mind, senses conditions and possession, usually use simple tenses instead of continuous tenses, even when the action or event is temporary or is interrupted. This creates a trick area of English grammar, in the past, present and future, as you may be tempted to use continuous tenses for these verbs. The following article explains how states work in the past tense.
The Past Simple and States
The past simple is used to describe states that happened before now, for instance with to have (usually showing possession) and to be (usually showing emotions or conditions).- I had two dresses.
- He was very sad yesterday.
- They didn’t understand why the car would not start.
- She seemed merry when I saw her.
- The bathroom smelt very strange last time I was there.
- Your hair looked fantastic.
- They didn’t understand why the car would not start.
Want to master the English tenses?
Learn all the rules with The English Tenses Practical Grammar Guide, and practise them with The English Tenses Exercise Book, which contains 160 exercises.
Dear Phil,
I disagree with your statement that says “The past simple does not always tell us the state finished, like most past simple actions or events. It may represent an ongoing state, or a state that was interrupted”. This goes against what many conventional grammar books teaches, which is that the simple past tense is used for a completed action in the past, or for a state that existed (i.e. was true) for some time in the past, but which is no longer true in the present. May I know why you wrote that “the past simple does not always tell us the state finished”?
My view is that if we wish to express a state which began in the past and continues into the present, since the verb is stative, we should use the present perfect tense, e.g. I have loved ice-cream since I was young.
For your kind advice, please.
Regards,
Tim
Hi Tim,
I’m happy to elaborate – this is somewhat semantic, but what I’m saying is that of itself the past simple does not explicitly refer to the completion of a state in the same way that it would for an action. You can infer that it took place in the past so is likely to no longer true in the present, yes, but that would also be true of the past continuous – when you say “I was listening to the radio while I worked.” we know that action (to listen) is now complete but the past continuous does not describe that completion itself; it presents the action as an ongoing process. The past simple can be used in the same way with states; it does not necessarily tell us when the state was complete, only that it was in progress in the past.
Consider “Henry was sad when I saw him this morning.” – we don’t necessarily know that Henry stopped being sad, or that he is no longer sad now, only that he was sad at that time in the past, when he was observed. In this way, the past simple does not describe completion as such for states – it’s specific function is to describe the state at a certain time in the past.
I hope this makes sense of the point? Do let me know if you have more questions or concerns with it.
Phil
Hi Phil,
I’ve read the above comments and I somewhat share the confusion as Tim.
1) I guess firstly for the simple past tense, when used with dynamic action verbs, will definitely mean that the simple past actions started and ended in the past?
2) However, do you mean that the simple past tense, when used with stative or state verbs, simply indicate that the states was ongoing (i.e. was true for some time in the past), but that it does not explicitly include the meaning of the state having ended in the past? To explain in another way, is it right to say that the simple past simple focuses on the fact that the state was ongoing for sometime in the past, but leaves it open as to whether the state had ended or is still ongoing?
3) Notwithstanding point 2 above, am I right to say that when people use the simple past tense with stative verbs, they tend to me that the state lasted for a while in the past (i.e. started and ended in the past)?
4) For the past continuous tense, is it also the same meaning in that while past continuous is used to express actions that started in the past and lasted for awhile in the past, it leaves it open as to whether the action actually ended or is still ongoing? In other words, focus of past continuous is simply on the fact that the action lasted for awhile in the past?
5) Why is it that with dynamic action verbs, simple past tense is used to mean the action started and ended in the past? However, for stative verbs, while it means that the state began and last for a while in the past, it does not convey the same meaning of the state having ended in the past?
6) How then do I reconcile this understanding of the simple past for stative verbs (i.e. to mean the state started in the past and lasted for a while in the past (in other words focus is on the fact the state started and lasted for a while in the past), but does not definitely conclude that the state ended in the past) with some traditional grammar explanations on use of simple past tense with stative verbs, as follows:
(6a) We use the past simple for finished states (e.g. We knew all our neighbours when we were children.)
(6b) The simple past can also be used to describe past facts or generalizations which are no longer true (e.g. She was shy as a child, but now she is very outgoing).
(6c) The simple past can also be used to describe a situation that lasted for a longer time in the past but is now finished (he went to college for four years; my family lived in Oxford in the 1980s; I loved her for ages but never told her).
(6d) We use the simple past tense with finished states in the past.
Sorry for the many questions again, but I just thought they each can be answered to give a better understanding. Thanks!
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
For questions 1-4, yes I think you have the right understanding. For (5), this goes to your other question about their nature as being abstract or concrete verbs. It’s not so much a case that the stative verb did not end in the past, it’s just not clearly observed, and the fact that we are more concerned with the occurrence than the end result (i.e. often the state of being in the past is what we discuss, rather than the completion/end point). However, it might clarify your points for 6 to generally consider that the implication of a stative verb in the past is that it did end, the same way that we consider a dynamic verb did, and the different forms you see are more to do with the context of how we discuss it. While your 4 examples for 6 describe different uses, they essentially all function the same way, to say that the state occurred in the past (i.e. it finished in the past); the tricky part is about how we define time around them, as the ending is sometimes merely implied.
So for some example interpretations:
“We knew all our neighbours when we were children.” = When we stopped being children, we stopped knowing all our neighbours.
“She was shy as a child, but now is outgoing.” = When she grew up, she stopped being shy.
“My family lived in Oxford in the 1980s.” = At some point since the 1980s, my family stopped living in Oxford.
Context is the key to unravelling these implications, of course, but we can still interpret them to end. The big difference though, really, is that dynamic verbs tend to have a clear result, which is why the end point is clearer.
“I wrote an article.” = The article existed once the action was complete, so we know that must’ve been the end point of writing.
As such, dynamic verbs lead us to consider results from their completion, whereas while stative verbs might be seen to stop, their result isn’t necessarily attached to finishing the verb.
I hope this adds some more clarity, but I do appreciate it’s a bit difficult to muddle through. The reality is that it’s also an area that requires some nuance that perhaps comes more from patterns of use than logically defined reasoning!
Best,
Phil
Hi Phil,
I have another set of queries regarding stative verbs and states of being verbs.
Firstly, I gather that states of being verbs (e.g. verbs such as forms of to be, like “is”, “were” as well as other linking verbs such as “seem”) are considered stative or state verbs, correct?
Secondly, why are linking verbs such as forms of “to be” referred to as “states of being” verbs? For instance, one explanation I can think of is to use a dynamic action verb as an example, such as the verb “to run”. So if I were running right now, I could say that technically I am in a state of “run-ning” or carrying out the action of “run-ning” right now, and so while the verb “to be” is not an action verb and technically should not be used to express, or be used in the present participle form, to express a dynamic action, in a similar way as running, forms of “to be” are also called states of being verbs because it describes the subject as in a state of “be-ing”, or state of “is-ing”, or state of “are-ing”, state of “were-ing”, am I right?
P.S. Sorry if the above questions seem weird, but I am genuinely curious, and would love to hear your explanation, thanks!
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Not at all, it’s a very good question and certainly valid. You’re right, we can argue that the dynamic verbs are also describing a state. The distinction I sometimes personally use, which may or may not be valid, is to consider that stative verbs have an abstract quality to them, with dynamic verbs roughly being those that concern the physical and stative verbs concerning the non-physical. Or perhaps tangible vs intangible is more appropriate: for example to run is an action with a clearly defined start and stop, and can be seen to happen. To be, however, isn’t necessarily as easily observed or measured – “I am happy.” is not something we can specifically say to have a start or end point, or to create a clearly defined tangible action (there are many side-actions we could attach to it, e.g. we know we are happy because we smile or our heart calms or such things, but the actual emotion is less tangible).
From this contrast, I believe, comes the grammatical separation, too – where simple tenses are more appropriate for stative verbs, it is because they are intangible, so we do not observe them in process in the same way. At least, that’s my interpretation, and it does stem somewhat from the grammar we have. And there are overlaps, where the verbs actually are treated the same way (e.g. “I’m feeling unwell.”, “I’m being silly.”), so this isn’t exactly clearly defined in itself, and perhaps we could also throw up our hands and say maybe there isn’t that big a difference!
Phil
Hi Phil, thanks. How about the question on “why are linking verbs such as forms of “to be” referred to as “states of being” verbs?” am I right to say that forms of “to be” are also called states of being verbs because it describes the subject as in a state of “be-ing”, or state of “is-ing”, or state of “are-ing”, state of “were-ing”, am I right?”
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Sorry I missed that, and for such a slow reply! Yes, I think that’s a fair way to look at it, such a word depicts a current state for the given time.
Phil
Hi Phil,
Firstly, my apologies if I’ve asked this before, but this query just arose in my mind suddenly hence I thought of seeking your advice on it.
My query concerns the meaning of stative verbs vis-a-vis transitive verbs. Since the definition of a transitive verb is that “a transitive verb is one that is used with an object: a noun, phrase, or pronoun that refers to the person or thing that is affected by the action of the verb”, and knowing that verbs and broadly be grouped into stative (state) and dynamic (action) verbs, my question is whether stative verbs can be considered transitive?
I ask this because my understanding is that state or stative verbs convey states and not actions, and since the definition of a transitive verb is one which is used with an object that is affected by the action of the verb (emphasis here being “action” and not a state), is it then possible for stative verbs to be transitive?
For example, if I say “I love the apple”, “love” here is very obviously a stative verb isn’t it? and yet it is also a transitive verb, with the apple being the recipient of the action of the verb love, however, am I right to describe “love” as being an action? if no and “love” should in fact be accurately called a “state” or stative verb, how then do i reconcile this with the definition of a transitive verb, which is a verb used with an object that receives or is affected by the action of the verb?
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
I can appreciate your concerns here, it does indeed get tricky when we start combining overlapping grammar definintions. Indeed, as your example shows a stative verb can be transitive; part of the issue I suppose is drawing a hard line between states and actions. A “state” isn’t necessarily passive, it can be applied to an object, but may still apply to abstract ideas such as to love to something, to like something. These deal with states of mind but they are also applicable/actively applied.
It’s an interesting question because if we consider states that deal with the senses, such as taste, smell etc., when they take an object they denote an action rather than a state. E.g. “This soup tastes nice.” vs “The chef is tasting his soup to check it.” (the first is the state of the soup, the second is a chef performing an action). In the same sense I think you would be correct to say in “I love the apple”, love becomes an action.
In the sense of when we would use these definitions, I think you’re right to draw a distinction between stative verbs as intransitive and state verbs taking an object as transitive actions, though, because knowing that something is a stative verb tells us it requires a predicate that describes the subject, whereas when it takes a noun object the subject is applied to something else, performing a different function to what stative verbs are intended.
I hope this at least clarifies it a little, though I think it’s probably an area that can have some flexibility and room for discussion!
A quick edit as this same issue just came up in another comment – there is also an area that confuses this further where a stative verb can be followed by a noun as a predicate, to complete the condition of the subject, e.g. for job roles.
I am a dancer.
In this case, we could say that “to be” is transitive, as it takes a noun object, though perhaps it’s more accurate to say it is a predicate and not an object. I’m honestly not sure if the two are exclusive, but I think for the purposes of understanding stative verbs it is more useful to consider it this way, because the noun defines the subject, rather than is affected by the verb.
Phil
Hi Phil
I am from Pakistan can’t afford to buy your book it will be a great favour if you give me your boom for free.
Hi Aqeel,
There’s a great deal of free content on the website, if you want the word order book summarised you can get most of that information here: Complete Word Order Guide
And there’s lots of tense articles available here: Grammar Articles
Otherwise, I do occasionally do deals on the eBooks for cheap – if you join the mailing list you’ll be alerted whenever that happens.
Phil
Hi ,
It used to be a fort.
We use past simple for past state and used to for repeated action in past .should it not be it was a fort.
Hi Sana,
We use “used to be” to describe a past state in a reflective way; it has a little more nuance than the simple “was”, as it can convey nostalgia or a sense of how something has changed. For example, “I used to be an athlete.” adds an emphasis to the reflection on the fact that I no longer am, whereas “I was an athlete.” is a more neutral statement of past fact.
Phil