# I was playing in the garden.



## maicart

Hello,

Let's take these sentences meaning "I was playing in the garden":

a) Ich war gerade im Garten *am Spielen*.
b) Ich war gerade im Garten *zu *spielen.
c) Ich war gerade im Garten spielen.

In sentence *a)* we have "Spielen" with capital letter because it's a Substantivierung.
What about sentences *b)* and *c)* ? If they are correct what type of grammar construction are they?


----------



## Perseas

Hello maicart,

I am not confident about the best way to express the meaning you want to convey, but I think *c)* is correct or perhaps *a)* <am-Progressiv>.
I probably would say "Ich war gerade im Garten und spielte" or "Ich spielte gerade im Garten". Let's wait for other answers.


----------



## Frieder

d) Ich spielte gerade im Garten. 

a) is colloquial style (am spielen sein)
b) is wrong (ich war im Garten, *um* zu spielen)
c) Doesn't work quite well with _war_. With _ging _it would. (spielen sein, spielen gehen)


----------



## maicart

Thanks, I'm particularly interested in *c)*

"im Garten spielen", is that an "Infinitivkonstruktion" working as an adverbial clause of manner (Modalsatz), adverbial clause of place (Lokalsatz), or attribute (Attribut)?

What about "Ich war gerade im Garten *spielend*"? If it is correct, would that be a "Partizip Präsens" working as a Modalsatz, Lokalsatz or Attribut?


----------



## JClaudeK

Frieder said:


> c) Doesn't work quite well with _war_. With _ging _it would. (spielen sein, spielen gehen)


I don't agree.
For me, "Ich war im Garten spielen." works (not as _Standarddeutsch_, though).
Ich war  im Garten spielen. = Ich bin *zum* Spielen im Garten  gewesen.

cf.: Ich war einkaufen
&
Verben außer Modalverben nie mit bloßem Infinitiv? "Wir sind arbeiten"


And this sentence
_a) Ich war gerade im Garten *am Spielen*._
sounds odd to me without a subordinate clause, e.g.
_Ich war gerade im Garten *am* Spielen, als meine Mutter nach Hause kam. 

_


Perseas said:


> I probably would say "Ich war gerade im Garten und spielte."


__
That's what I would say for_ "I was playing in the garden."_


----------



## Sowka

I would avoid the preterite "spielte".

_Ich war gerade im Garten und habe gespielt_.

_Ich habe gerade im Garten gespielt_.



maicart said:


> What about "Ich war gerade im Garten *spielend*"? If it is correct, would that be a "Partizip Präsens" working as a Modalsatz, Lokalsatz or Attribut?



This is not idiomatic. In German, this participle form is not used in this way (and it is rather infrequent overall).


----------



## elroy

Sowka said:


> _Ich war gerade im Garten und habe gespielt_.
> 
> _Ich habe gerade im Garten gespielt_.


 Hm, doesn't "gerade" in these sentences mean "just now" rather than indicating whether I _was playing_ or _played_?


----------



## Sowka

elroy said:


> Hm, doesn't "gerade" in these sentences mean "just now" rather than indicating whether I _was playing_ or _played_?


You are right. This was a copy-and-paste accident.


----------



## bearded

Sowka said:


> I would avoid the preterite "spielte".
> _Ich war gerade im Garten und habe gespielt_.


 Can you please explain why you would avoid 'spielte'? And - more important - how can two verbs so close to each other (having the same subject, and just being co-ordinated by 'und') have different tenses?
For me, it should be either
_Ich bin gerade im Garten gewesen und habe gespielt_
or
_Ich war gerade im Garten und spielte _(I agree with #2 and 5).
Actually, it is not the same objection as elroy's, but the result could be on the same line.


----------



## JClaudeK

Sowka said:


> _Ich war gerade im Garten und habe gespielt_.



(so würde ich es auch sagen)



bearded said:


> Can you please explain why you would avoid 'spielte'?





> Siehe
> In der heutigen Umgangssprache wird normalerweise nicht zwischen Perfekt und Präteritum unterschieden. Das Perfekt kommt sehr häufig in der gesprochenen Sprache vor, wenn man über alltägliche Dinge spricht.
> Bei den Verben sein und haben und den Modalverben wird in allen Situationen oft das Präteritum benutzt.


----------



## Schlabberlatz

JClaudeK said:


> For me, "Ich war im Garten spielen." works (not as _Standarddeutsch_, though).
> Ich war im Garten spielen. = Ich bin *zum* Spielen im Garten gewesen.


I agree. I think it's Absentiv.


maicart said:


> "I was playing in the garden":
> 
> a) Ich war gerade im Garten *am Spielen*.
> b) Ich war gerade im Garten *zu *spielen.
> c) Ich war gerade im Garten spielen.


Question to the native speakers of English: Does "I was playing in the garden" really imply that it happened "gerade"? I think that if you wanted to say that it happened "gerade" you would have to use the present perfect, but I may be mistaken. "I have been playing in the garden."


bearded said:


> Can you please explain why you would avoid 'spielte'? And - more important - how can two verbs so close to each other (having the same subject, and just being co-ordinated by 'und') have different tenses?


I agree with JCK. If you want to read more: Während wir...machten, ist Leonie gestürzt (gefallen)// stürzte (fiel) Leonie.


----------



## elroy

Schlabberlatz said:


> Does "I was playing in the garden" really imply that it happened "gerade"?


 No. 





Schlabberlatz said:


> I think that if you wanted to say that it happened "gerade" you would have to use the present perfect, but I may be mistaken. "I have been playing in the garden."


 That could also mean that I’m still playing.

You can say “I was just playing in the garden” or “I was playing in the garden just now” (since “just” is ambiguous).


----------



## Schlabberlatz

Thanks! 


elroy said:


> That could also mean that I’m still playing.


Do you think it's correct? Maybe it's correct but a bad choice? Would you prefer:


elroy said:


> “I was just playing in the garden” or “I was playing in the garden just now”


?


----------



## elroy

Schlabberlatz said:


> Do you think it's correct?


 It’s correct, and there’s nothing wrong with it. 





Schlabberlatz said:


> Would you prefer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elroy said:
> 
> 
> 
> “I was just playing in the garden” or “I was playing in the garden just now”
> 
> 
> 
> ?
Click to expand...

 Both are okay.  I offered “just now” because “just” can be ambiguous (“gerade” vs. “einfach”).


----------



## Schlabberlatz

Thanks! 

What I wanted to know is: Would you prefer "I have been playing in the garden" or one of the other two sentences:
“I was just playing in the garden”, “I was playing in the garden just now”.

What about "I *have just been* playing in the garden"?


----------



## elroy

Well, the only one that's not ambiguous is the one with "just now":

"have been playing": "I still am" vs. "I no longer am"
"just": "gerade" vs. "einfach"

So I might use "just now" if I needed to make sure there was no chance of misunderstanding.  But the other two are perfectly fine if the meaning is clear from context.


Schlabberlatz said:


> What about "I *have just been* playing in the garden"?


 This has _both_ ambiguity issues: the one with "just" and the one with "have been."


----------



## Hutschi

JClaudeK said:


> ...
> And this sentence
> _a) Ich war gerade im Garten *am Spielen*._
> sounds odd to me without a subordinate clause, e.g.
> _Ich war gerade im Garten *am* Spielen, als meine Mutter nach Hause kam.
> _
> ...



Hi Claude, the same is the case with all of the other forms like "Ich spielte gerade im Garten."
"Gerade" needs some context.
It may be a subordinate clause, a question or even a main clause.
Was hast du um 5 Uhr nachmittags gemacht? Ich war gerade im Garten am Spielen. (The subordinate clause is moved to the question. It remains as empty trace.)
Ich war gerade im Garten am Spielen. Da hörte ich plötzlich ein Geräusch. ... (Here I used a main clause.)

What do you think about this? Does it remain strange this way? If not we could agree, that context is required.
Best regards
Bernd


----------



## Schlabberlatz

Thanks! 


elroy said:


> This has _both_ ambiguity issues: the one with "just" and the one with "have been."


But it's still a very nice sentence ...


elroy said:


> if the meaning is clear from context


..., isn't it?


----------



## elroy

What's the context?


----------



## Schlabberlatz

elroy said:


> What's the context?


Well, isn't that clear? 


maicart said:


> a) Ich war gerade im Garten *am Spielen*.
> b) Ich war gerade im Garten *zu *spielen.
> c) Ich war gerade im Garten spielen.





Schlabberlatz said:


> Question to the native speakers of English: Does "I was playing in the garden" really imply that it happened "gerade"? I think that if you wanted to say that it happened "gerade" you would have to use the present perfect, but I may be mistaken. "I have been playing in the garden."


----------



## Hutschi

Schlabberlatz said:


> Well, isn't that clear?


The problem: What does "gerade"="just" mean? Where does it refer to?

You cannot use these sentences without context.


----------



## elroy

The sentence "I have just been playing in the garden" has three possible meanings.  Without further context, it's impossible to know which is meant. 

It can mean:

Ich war gerade im Garten und war dort am Spielen.
Ich war gerade im Garten und war dort einfach nur am Spielen.

Ich bin gerade im Garten und bin seit einer Weile hier am Spielen.


----------



## Hutschi

In German 2. is a sub groups of 1. with more details. 3. is another time. So context is necessary, indeed.
(Edit: cosidered time.)


----------



## Schlabberlatz

elroy said:


> It can mean:
> 
> Ich war gerade im Garten und war dort am Spielen.


Thanks again! 

In #20, I should have mentioned Sowka's sentences:


Sowka said:


> _Ich war gerade im Garten und habe gespielt_.
> 
> _Ich habe gerade im Garten gespielt_.


... instead of Maicart's because Sowka's sentences are better. That's the context: Ich war gerade im Garten am Spielen (Maicart) = Ich war gerade im Garten und habe gespielt (Sowka) = Ich war gerade im Garten und war dort am Spielen (Elroy) ... at least that's how _I_ interpret these sentences. I don't see much ambiguity in the German sentence. It means that at some time I entered the garden, then I played for a while, and then I left the garden. Shortly after leaving the garden, I say:
Ich war gerade im Garten und habe gespielt.

What else should it mean?


----------



## elroy

I thought we were talking about the _English_ sentence! 

In _German_:

Ich war gerade im Garten am Spielen. (maicart)
Ich war gerade im Garten und habe gespielt. (Sowka)
Ich war gerade im Garten und war dort am Spielen. (elroy)
Sowka's sentence doesn't include the progressive aspect.  To the extent that this is important to maicart, it needs to be expressed.  Sowka's sentence is ambiguous because it could mean either "I was playing" or "I played."

In _English_:

See #22.  "I have just been playing in the garden" has two _different _layers of ambiguity: one about the meaning of "just" and one about the intended time reference (which is crucial here!).  To _unambiguously_ express the meaning of 1 and 3 above, you could say "I was in the garden just now and I was playing there," or, more succinctly, "I was playing in the garden just now" (cf. #12).


----------



## Schlabberlatz

elroy said:


> I thought we were talking about the _English_ sentence!


You're right. I quoted the three German sentences to clarify the context ... but it seems I failed 
To me, the three sentences are identical in meaning. Playing is not an "isolated" action, if that is the right word. It's not like "I slipped, I stumbled, I fell" -- that happens in a moment, and then it's over. Playing implies progressiveness /duration. So "Ich habe gespielt" = "I was playing". At least that's how I see it. I guess it's a bit difficult. German doesn't normally have progressive forms. The "Rheinische Verlaufsform" is seen as being a colloquial form only. I hope I'm not confusing anybody. (Or does it have to be "I hope I don't confuse anybody"? For me as a native speaker of German only the question "progressive or not" is often difficult to answer.) Could you say "I just played in the garden"? Or does it have to be "I was just playing in the garden"?


----------



## elroy

Haha, we're digging deeper, I see. 

Is there a difference between "I was playing" and "I played"?  Maybe it's just a nuance.  "I played" is a completed event: "I completed the action of playing."  "I was playing" focuses on the process of playing.  It can also be used as the background to another event.  For example: "I was just playing in the garden when I heard some strange noises."  "I just played in the garden when I heard some strange noises" would change the meaning: it would mean "I played in the garden after I heard some strange noises."
Regardless of the difference between "I was playing" and "I played," the _English_ sentence "I have just been playing" remains ambiguous because it could mean that I'm still playing or that I'm not playing anymore (this is putting aside the ambiguity of "just," which isn't really relevant here).
"I just played in the garden" is grammatical, yes.  But again, it's "played" vs. "was playing."
"I hope I'm not confusing anybody." = "Ich hoffe, ich verwirre gerade niemanden." vs. "I hope I don't confuse anybody." = "Ich hoffe, ich verwirre nachher/in Zukunft niemanden (der diese Worte liest)."  One refers to the present and the other refers to the future. Again, it's arguably just a nuance.  When you say "I hope I'm not confusing anybody," you're framing this as though you were actually speaking to an audience who could hear your words as you spoke them.  "I hope I _don't_ confuse anyone" acknowledges that your words won't be read until you've submitted your post.


----------



## Schlabberlatz

Thank you for your detailed explanation! 

One more question (I hope it will be the last one). Imagine you are the one who has played in the garden:


Schlabberlatz said:


> It means that at some time I entered the garden, then I played for a while, and then I left the garden. Shortly after leaving the garden, I say:
> Ich war gerade im Garten und habe gespielt.


You have just re-entered the house and for some reason or other you talk about what you did before. The context is clear to the listener because they have noticed that you have returned after an absence. What would you say to them? Which of the sentences we have discussed would be (to you) the most natural one to say in the situation in question?


----------



## elroy

It depends.  Why am I telling them what I did/was doing?  Did they ask?  Am I recounting what I did that day?  Maybe if you give me a dialogue in German I can tell you what I would say in English.


----------



## Schlabberlatz

Since it's mostly children who play, imagine you are a child. You don't like to stay in the same place for a long time. (You have "Hummeln im Hintern"  ) Your mother/father/older brother/whoever often wonders where you might be. When you return, they ask you where you have been, or what you have done, or they just throw that inquisitive glance at you that you know so well. You have gone to the garden in order to play there, you have played there for a short time, and then you have gone inside again.
"Wo warst du denn schon wieder?"
"Ich war gerade im Garten und habe gespielt."


----------



## elroy

"Was playing," definitely.

(PS: "Du hast Hummeln im Hintern" = "You have ants in your pants." )


----------



## Schlabberlatz

Thanks again! 

("ants in your pants" -- thanks also for pointing that out -- I didn't know it.)


----------



## Hutschi

In German "gerade" often indicates a kind of progressive, or it points to a point in time during a handling, mainly in past or present tense.
Thes same function has "während".
Während ich spielte, klingelte es.
Both allow a kind of nested time.

ttttttttt1ttttt
t - Time
1 - Point in time, refers to what happened "gerade".

Mutti rief, als ich gerade spielte.
Mutti rief gerade/soeben, als/während ich spielte.


----------



## manfy

Hutschi said:


> In German "gerade" often indicates a kind of progressive, ...


Nicht wirklich, eigentlich. Die Progressivität scheint mir eher im Verb oder in der Verbphrase impliziert zu sein.
_Gerade_ unterstreicht die Tatsache, dass man von einem expliziten Zeitpunkt spricht. Der Kontext bestimmt, ob es sich dabei um Vergangenheit, Gegenwart oder Zukunft dreht, z.B.
A: "Ich war gestern um 3 bei dir. Warum hast du nicht aufgemacht?"
B: "Ich war wohl gerade bei meinem Nachbarn im sechsten Stock. Er hatte ein Problem mit MS Excel und hat mich um Hilfe gebeten."​
Eindeutig Vergangenheit und _gerade_ bezieht sich auf den expliziten Zeitpunkt 'gestern um 3 Uhr'. Zwar sagt man hier oft "*Da* war ich gerade..." oder "*Zu dem Zeitpunkt* war ich gerade..." aber es klappt auch ohne.

Somit kann _gerade_ sowohl als 'just now' oder als 'just then' (im Sinne von 'at that exact point in time') interpretiert werden; es kommt auf den Kontext an.

Und zur Progressivität:
"Ich hatte gerade die Katze in die Mikrowelle gesteckt, da fing meine Mama wie wild zu schreien an." 

'Zu schreien _anfangen'_ und 'die Katze irgendwohin _gesteckt haben'_ sind eher momentäre Zustände. Plusquamperfekt drückt aus, dass ich die Katzenwärmungsvorbereitungen gerade erst abgeschlossen hatte als es zum hysterischen Auf-sich-aufmerksam-Machen der Mama kam.


----------



## Hutschi

Da hast Du völlig recht.
Ich habe auch geschrieben: "oft".

Ich meine solche Formen:

Ich spiele gerade im Garten. = I'm playing in the garden. 
Ich spiele im Garten = I play in the garden. I will play in the garden. I will be playing in the garden. etc.

"Spielen" ist selbst ein andauernder Prozess.

Oft wird "gerade" zur Einordnung des zeitlichen Ablaufs verwendet. Dazu können Schachtelungen progressiver Verben - aber auch Abläufe von Statusänderungen (Verben, wie "ausschalten) gehören.

In "Ich spiele gerade im Garten." hier ist es ein andauerndes Verb, der Beobachtungszeitpunkt ist Gegenwart. Das entspricht, soviel ich weiß, dem Progressiv in Englisch, der durch das Gerundium (verb+ing) dargestellt wird. In deutsch gibt es diese Form nicht.


----------



## elroy

Hutschi hat recht. Dass “gerade” auch anderweitig verwendet wird, bedeutet doch nicht, dass Progessivität _nicht_ in seinen Anwendungsbereich gehört.


Hutschi said:


> In "Ich spiele gerade im Garten." hier ist es ein andauerndes Verb, der Beobachtungszeitpunkt ist Gegenwart. Das entspricht, soviel ich weiß, dem Progressiv in Englisch, der durch das Gerundium (verb+ing) dargestellt wird.


----------



## Schlabberlatz

Hutschi said:


> Da hast Du völlig recht.
> Ich habe auch geschrieben: "oft".
> 
> Ich meine solche Formen:
> 
> Ich spiele gerade im Garten. = I'm playing in the garden.
> Ich spiele im Garten = I play in the garden. I will play in the garden. I will be playing in the garden. etc.
> 
> "Spielen" ist selbst ein andauernder Prozess.
> 
> Oft wird "gerade" zur Einordnung des zeitlichen Ablaufs verwendet. Dazu können Schachtelungen progressiver Verben - aber auch Abläufe von Statusänderungen (Verben, wie "ausschalten) gehören.
> 
> In "Ich spiele gerade im Garten." hier ist es ein andauerndes Verb, der Beobachtungszeitpunkt ist Gegenwart. Das entspricht, soviel ich weiß, dem Progressiv in Englisch, der durch das Gerundium (verb+ing) dargestellt wird. In deutsch gibt es diese Form nicht.





Hutschi said:


> Ich spiele gerade im Garten. = I'm playing in the garden.
> Ich spiele im Garten = I play in the garden. I will play in the garden. I will be playing in the garden. etc.


This could be misleading. If it's clear that one is speaking about the present, there's no need to include "gerade"

... so that "Ich spiele im Garten" can also mean "I'm playing in the garden".

Cf.:


Schlabberlatz said:


> So "Ich habe gespielt" = "I was playing". At least that's how I see it. I guess it's a bit difficult. German doesn't normally have progressive forms. The "Rheinische Verlaufsform" is seen as being a colloquial form only.


----------



## elroy

Schlabberlatz said:


> "Ich spiele im Garten" can also mean "I'm playing in the garden".


 Of course!  But it can also mean “I play in the garden.”  It’s ambiguous.

If you need to make it clear that you mean “I’m playing,” one of the ways to do that is to add “gerade.”  So we can rightly say that progressiveness is one of the things “gerade” can express.


----------



## Schlabberlatz

elroy said:


> Of course! But it can also mean “I play in the garden.” It’s ambiguous.


You're right, and I've never said anything to the contrary.


elroy said:


> If you need to make it clear that you mean “I’m playing,” one of the ways to do that is to add “gerade.” So we can rightly say that progressiveness is one of the things “gerade” can express.


You're right, and I've never said anything to the contrary.


----------



## elroy

Okay, I see your point.  Yes, Hutschi’s wording wasn’t 100% precise, but in this context I think it was obvious what he meant.


----------



## Schlabberlatz

OK, but the posts in this forum are often read by learners of German. The more precision the better. Hutschi's wording is not misleading to you because you are a "Könner", but it could be misleading for an "Anfänger" 

I'd like to add -- because I think that it could benefit learners of German -- that the "gerade" that Hutschi has mentioned is not identical to the "gerade" of the original post:


> *gerade* _Adj_ (eben erst) (_colloquial_) *just now* _expr_
> (_formal_) *a moment ago* _expr_
> gerade nach Hause zurückgekommen sein
> *gerade* _Adv_ (im Moment) *currently* _adv_
> *right now* _expr_
> Doris hat gerade keine Zeit.
> gerade - Wörterbuch Deutsch-Englisch - WordReference.com


----------



## elroy

Yes, indeed! 

These two different meanings of “gerade” seem to have caused some confusion in this thread.


----------



## Hutschi

Schlabberlatz said:


> This could be misleading. If it's clear that one is speaking about the present, there's no need to include "gerade"
> 
> ... so that "Ich spiele im Garten" can also mean "I'm playing in the garden".
> 
> Cf.:



This is true but it depends on context.
One way to give "enough" context is to include "gerade".

It is always difficult to explain times when different languages form them differently and use different forms of grammar.

"Ich spiele im Garten" depends highly on content. "Spielen" by itself has some length, it is a kind of "contiuos" by itself.

But it does not say anything about when it occurs. Context can be the situation. Context can be earlier or later sentences.

In my mind "Ich spiele gerade im Garten" has the basically the same meaning as "I'm playing in the garden." (There might be different connotations, I am not a native speaker of English, but I never found such ones negating this).

"Ich spiele im Garten" can have multiple meanings.
We agreed that "spielen" by itself has connotation of duration. You cannot play just an infinitely short moment. But such a moment can point to it ("gerade" is such a moment).

Where it is at the time line depends on additional particles or on context.
It can be in the past, in the present time or in the future.


1956:  Bernd spielt im Sandkasten.

Ivo spielt gerade im Sandkasten. -- This I'd render as "I'm playing there."
Ivo spielt täglich im Sandkasten. (This is not really continuosly but often interupted, as we no. Sleeping, walking, eating etc.
Here I'd say "He plays there each day." 

Without context it is impossible to translate "Er spielt im Sandkasten" properly to English. The systems are too different, and the fuzzyness is different.

So I just refered  to one special part.

"Gerade" is a particle that can reduce the fuzzyness. So together with a continuos verb it can emulate present continuos of English.

The translation of grammatical forms into English and from English is not symmetrically.

This makes it very difficult to explain it properly.

And there are always exceptions somewhere.

"Gerade" is not a continuos form by itself. It is a pointer to a point in time.  

"Was hast du gerade gemacht?" is a very other case than "Was machst du gerade?"


----------

