# er war schwimmen



## heebiejeebies

Was a bit surprised to read this in a book: "Deshalb uberrascht es mich nicht, dass er schwimmen war". I assume this means something like "That's why I'm not surprised that he was swimming" but I didn't think you could do this in German.  

If so, can you always translate the continuous present (I was going, she is eating) like this?  i.e.  Ich war gehen, sie ist essen?!


----------



## Lykurg

> Ich war gehen,  sie ist essen?! tick


It works only with some words, and it is rather simple style.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

Hi folks,

I note that this topic has already been discussed before:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=456951

Abba


----------



## ABBA Stanza

Hi guys, I have some points to raise on this subject that as far as I can see were not dealt with completely on the other thread. Also, the other thread has become quite cluttered and confusing.

So maybe it would be a good idea to carry on the discussion here? However, I don't want to write a (relatively) long post here, if this thread is going to be closed shortly afterwards.

What do the others (including the moderators) think?

Abba


----------



## Kurtchen

It's an elliptical construction, in my opinion:
_
Ich bin/war schwimmen [gegangen/gewesen]_ 

the participles being omitted in colloquial speech. 
Obviously doesn't apply to _Ich bin gehen !gegangen!_ (unless you were heading to a race-walking meet )



> Was a bit surprised to read this in a book: "Deshalb uberrascht es mich nicht, dass er schwimmen war". I assume this means something like "That's why I'm not surprised that he was swimming"


While there are similarities I'd rather not get the concepts mixed. Have to think about a little more, though. I'll be back with a more informed opinion


----------



## Sidjanga

Kurtchen said:


> It's an elliptical construction, in my opinion:
> _
> Ich bin/war schwimmen [gegangen/gewesen]_ ...


Yes, or - similar to what Henryk suggested in the other thread:

_Ich bin/war (beim) Schwimmen._


----------



## berndf

heebiejeebies said:


> If so, can you always translate the continuous present...


You probably gathered from previous post. But just to make it explicit: "Er was schwimmen" is *not* a continuous form. As Kurtchen said, it means "he went swimming".


----------



## Kurtchen

Sigianga said:


> Yes, or - similar to what Henryk suggested in the other thread:
> 
> _Ich bin/war (beim) Schwimmen._



Sorry I must have missed this (I had only skimmed the rest of the thread)

I would not identify _schwimmen _as a noun (ie _Schwimmen_) without the preposition present, even if it's implied 

_Ich war zum Segeln._
but always
_Ich war_ _segeln_.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

Hi guys,

It would be nice to have a small set of simple general rules suitable for foreign students of German, that would help them out in most practical situations.

As far as I can see, the most important one is that, if <A> is a verb representing the activity involved, then the phrases on the left can be transformed into the phrases on the right, as follows:



> _ich *bin* <A> *gegangen* --> ich *war* <A>_
> _du *bist* <A> *gegangen* --> du *warst* <A>_
> _er/sie/es *ist* <A> *gegangen* --> er/sie/es *war* <A>_
> _wir *sind* <A> *gegangen* --> wir *waren* <A>_
> _ihr *seid* <A> *gegangen* --> ihr *wart* <A>_
> _sie/Sie *sind* <A> *gegangen* --> sie/Sie *waren* <A>_


 
In other words, any activity verb that results in a valid left-hand side sentence when substituted for <A> can also be used in the shorthand form used on the right-hand side, as shown in the following examples:



> _ich *bin* *wählen* *gegangen* --> ich *war* *wählen*_
> _du *bist* *schlafen* *gegangen* --> du *warst* *schlafen*_
> _er/sie/es *ist* *schwimmen* *gegangen* --> er/sie/es *war* *schwimmen*_
> _wir *sind* *tanzen* *gegangen* --> wir *waren* *tanzen*_
> _ihr *seid* *Golf spielen* *gegangen* --> ihr *wart* *Golf spielen*_
> _sie/Sie *sind* *essen* *gegangen* --> sie/Sie *waren* *essen*_


Another thing worth noting that I haven't seen mentioned by anyone else yet, is that, in the region of Germany where I live (_Südhessen_), things can get weirder still! Most of the indigenous population here does not use any of the forms listed on the right above. For example, they do not usually say:



> _Wir waren tanzen._


Instead, they say:



> _Wir waren tanzen *gewesen*._


Here, the addition of word _gewesen_ does not indicate use of the Past Perfect tense (_Plusquamperfekt_). Rather, the presence of _gewesen_ serves no grammatical purpose at all, other than maybe underlining the fact that the activity occurred in the past. In other words, this dialect form likewise translates into English as nothing more and nothing less than simply _"We went dancing"_!

Abba


----------



## Toadie

Isn't it just like lots of other colloquial speech, where forms of "gehen" are left out?

i.e.
-"Ich muss"
-"Darf ich auf die Toilette"


----------



## ABBA Stanza

Toadie said:


> Isn't it just like lots of other colloquial speech, where forms of "gehen" are left out?
> 
> i.e.
> -"Ich muss"
> -"Darf ich auf die Toilette"


Not really.

Firstly, as shown in my previous examples, it's not just the _gegangen_ bit that's being dropped, but also the verb _sein_ is transformed into its past tense equivalent. For example:



> _Ich *bin* schwimmen gegangen. --> Ich *war* schwimmen._


 
Secondly, the rule is made more complicated by the fact that the placeholder <A> in the first quote box in my last post cannot be replaced by any arbitrary construct, but must be a verb (or verb combination such as _Fahrrad fahren_).

For example, <A> cannot be substituted by "ins Kino":



> _Wir *sind* *ins Kino* *gegangen*. -> Wir *waren* *ins Kino*. _


 
So I believe we're talking about a fairly well-defined set of formal rules of relatively restricted scope that deserve to be listed explicitly just like any other grammatical transformations.

Abba


----------



## trance0

It is an elliptical construction of some sort, but not exactly the same as "ich muss..." instead of "ich muss gehen". Look at the Abba Stanza`s "formula", it`s quite interesting how it works. I must admit I`ve never come across this, but I only use German on the internet, so.


----------



## Sidjanga

Kurtchen said:


> ..I would not identify _schwimmen _as a noun (ie _Schwimmen_) without the preposition present, even if it's implied
> 
> _Ich war zum Segeln._
> but always
> _Ich war_ _segeln_.


(I knew somebody would come up with this objection...;-))

I should probably have written: _Ich war (beim) *s*_/_*S*chwimmen.
_ 
In essence: _Ich war beim Schwimmen. = Ich war schwimmen._ (I personally wouldn't say _zum _here).

In any case, I take it that everybody agrees that _Ich war schwimmen_. is colloquial language - and that you don not usually hear the case (upper/lower) nor wonder much about the exact syntactic function of a certain word within a sentence when speaking/listening to someone. ().
j


----------



## ABBA Stanza

Sigianga said:


> In any case, I take it that everybody agrees that _Ich war schwimmen_. is colloquial language - and that you don not usually hear the case (upper/lower) nor wonder much about the exact syntactic function of a certain word within a sentence when speaking/listening to someone. ().
> j


It may be colloquial language, but must admit that I actually very much like this formulation, due to its conciseness and convenience. And after one hears it many times, it stops sounding strange and starts sounding totally normal.

It may have derived from the "gehen" forms originally (which would explain why it's only a valid for verb forms involving "gehen"). However, with the "gehen" part dropped, it's probably only a matter of time before _"ich war schwimmen"_ is interpreted as the continuous activity, rather than the act of going swimming (if it hasn't happened already).

To underline this point, I would argue that the following is correct colloquial usage:



> Ich war schwimmen, als es passiert ist.


Do others agree?

_P.S. As regards things like capitalization not being so important for such colloquial phrases, I kind of agree. However, since the advent of the Internet and mobile phone, such details are becoming visible, because many young people (e.g., in blogs and chat forums) write German as they speak it._

Abba


----------



## berndf

ABBA Stanza said:


> Do others agree?


No. You would say _Ich war schwimmen, als es passiert ist_ e.g. if you house burnt down to explain that you couldn't have done anything because you weren't there. I would translate this sentence into English like this: _I was gone swimming when it happened._


----------



## Robocop

> _ich *bin* *wählen* *gegangen* --> ich *war* *wählen*_
> _du *bist* *schlafen* *gegangen* --> du *warst* *schlafen*_
> _er/sie/es *ist* *schwimmen* *gegangen* --> er/sie/es *war* *schwimmen*_
> _wir *sind* *tanzen* *gegangen* --> wir *waren* *tanzen*_
> _ihr *seid* *Golf spielen* *gegangen* --> ihr *wart* *Golf spielen*_
> _sie/Sie *sind* *essen* *gegangen* --> sie/Sie *waren* *essen*_


For me, the wording in question is clearly *colloquial *language and, besides, I *for one* would only used it with reference to a state of  *prolonged physical activity*, which in my opinion rules out its usage in some of the examples given by ABBA Stanza.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

Hi Robocop,

I can assure you that sentences like:



> _Ich war *wähen*._


 
and



> _Wir waren *essen*._


 
are very commonly used in the region I live in! I've heard both of these sentences many times in the 18 years I've lived here up to now.

The only one I may not have heard (I will listen out for it in the future) is:



> _Ich war *schlafen*._


 
But this may simply be due to the fact that its not a very newsworthy activity to report on! 

All the best.

Abba


----------



## berndf

ABBA Stanza said:


> The only one I may not have heard (I will listen out for it in the future) is:
> 
> 
> 
> _Ich war *schlafen*._
Click to expand...

Typical dialogue for this would be:
"Ich war gestern gegen 11 in deinem Hotel und habe in der Bar nach Dir Ausschau gehalten. Da warst aber nicht da."
"Ja, ich war schon schlafen."


----------



## Lykurg

I agree that it is colloquial, but I disagree on the 'prolonged physical activity' part. In my estimation five of the six examples given above do work in *colloquial* language - (all apart from "du warst schlafen".)

_"Und, warst du schon wählen?" - "Nö, mach' ich nachher, bin gleich essen."_

I think it is possible (though I don't recommend it).


[edit: I agree with berndf, in this context even "ich war schlafen" is used.]


----------



## sokol

Lykurg said:


> _"Und, warst du schon wählen?" - "Nö, mach' ich nachher, bin gleich essen."_


It sounds completely natural to me and myself I wouldn't be so strict to call all those uses "colloquial" - some surely are, yes.
But "ich war wählen" sounds very natural to me, as does "ich war schwimmen" and "wir waren tanzen/Golf spielen".
On the contrary "ich war schlafen" in the context Bernd mentioned to me definitely sounds colloquial, as does "sie waren essen".

So it seems we cannot quite agree on what is adequate.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

Hi again guys,

Whilst doing the usual weekend chores earlier today, I realized there's another extremely common one we've forgotten:



> _ich *bin* *einkaufen* *gegangen* --> ich *war* *einkaufen*_


 


			
				Robocop said:
			
		

> For me, the wording in question is clearly *colloquial *language and, besides, I *for one* would only used it with reference to a state of *prolonged physical activity*


This suggests that it's the continuous activity which is important, whereas:



			
				berndf said:
			
		

> But just to make it explicit: "Er war schwimmen" is *not* a continuous form. As Kurtchen said, it means "he went swimming".


suggests the opposite.

Maybe both are right in some sense, in that these shorthand colloquial phrases have evolved over time to often now mean the continuous activity in colloquial usage?



			
				berndf said:
			
		

> You would say _Ich war schwimmen, als es passiert ist_ e.g. if you house burnt down to explain that you couldn't have done anything because you weren't there. I would translate this sentence into English like this: _I was gone swimming when it happened._


I didn't understand this. I would expect, that if _"ich war schwimmen"_ is taken to mean _"I went swimming"_, one must also logically conclude that _"ich war schwimmen, als es passiert ist"_ means _"I went swimming when it happened"_. In other words, whilst the house was burning down, I went off swimming!

That's why I'm still not convinced that the continuous activity is not meant in many cases.



			
				sokol said:
			
		

> So it seems we cannot quite agree on what is adequate.


Yes, but compared to the chaos with the "...hat hingehen müssen" stuff we've just been discusing (which _*is*_ the grammar books), I think we're doing pretty well! 

Abba


----------



## berndf

The expression "xxx-en sein" always has the connotation of "to be at one place rather than at another in order to do XXX-ing". A continuous form does not have this connotation. I do not regard Robocop's characterization as a contradiction to what I said but rather as an additional aspect. I would agree to say that "xxx-en sein" *implies* continuous action but it is more and this "more" is always important to the meaning. Therefore I wouldn’t call it a continuous form.

In the context of "_Ich war schwimmen, als es passiert ist", "Ich war schwimmen" _definitely means_ "I was gone swimming" _or_ I had gone swimming"._ In this respect I have to amend by first post. There are also sentences, where "_I went swinning_" is an appropriate translation, like in "_Ich war letzte Woche schwimmen_". In this case the emphasis is on the fact that you went somewhere in order to swim whereas in "_Ich war schwimmen, als es passiert ist" _the emphasis is on the fact that you couldn't do anything about it because you were somewhere else. Logically this means that you went swimming *before* it happened, hence _"I was gone swimming" _or_ "I had gone swimming"_.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

Thanks, Bernd, I think I've got it now!



berndf said:


> The expression "xxx-en sein" always has the connotation of "to be at one place rather than at another in order to do XXX-ing".


An excellent "text book" example to illustrate and test a person's understanding of this concept would be:



> Wir waren Kaffee trinken.


Although drinking coffee is something that can be done at home, this construct (like you say) clearly implies going out to drink coffee (e.g., in a bar, bistro, cafe, or wherever), and to also enjoy an "obligatory" slice of cake of course!




			
				berndf said:
			
		

> A continuous form does not have this connotation. I do not regard Robocop's characterization as a contradiction to what I said but rather as an additional aspect. I would agree to say that "xxx-en sein" *implies* continuous action but it is more and this "more" is always important to the meaning. Therefore I wouldn’t call it a continuous form.


As shown by the "wählen" example, the "continuous" activity doesn't need to be very long. This probably makes sense because, if one adds in the time to get to the election hall, pick up a ballot paper, find a free booth
and get back home again, a phrase like "Ich war wählen" makes sense. Indeed, judging by those queues we saw recently in the U.S. presidential election, voting is much more of a continuous activity there than swimming is!




			
				berndf said:
			
		

> In the context of "_Ich war schwimmen, als es passiert ist", "Ich war schwimmen" _definitely means_ "I was gone swimming" _or_ I had gone swimming"._


I understand. This means, of course, that there is no one fixed equivalent expression that can be represented in table form as I tried to do in my previous post. The most one can do as a general rule is to say that the "ich war schwimmen" type of construct (has it got a name?) can essentially be used by most "continuous" activities combinable with "gehen".

Note that we have not really discussed the present tense yet ("Ich bin wählen", "Wir sind essen"). I tried to discuss it a bit in my last post, but I was unsure of my facts, and thus deleted that section in order to give me more time to think about it. In practice, I don't hear the present tense version ("ich bin wählen") anything like as much as the past tense version ("ich war wählen"). But I'm not sure why yet.

Abba


----------



## berndf

ABBA Stanza said:


> Although drinking coffee is something that can be done at home, this construct (like you say) clearly implies going out to drink coffee (e.g., in a bar, bistro, cafe, or wherever), and to also enjoy an "obligatory" slice of cake of course!


Excellent example!


> ... there is no one fixed equivalent _[English]_ expression...


I guess not; otherwise this thread would have been much shorter.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

berndf said:


> ... there is no one fixed equivalent _[English]_ expression...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess not; otherwise this thread would have been much shorter.
Click to expand...

No, I actually mean _German_ expression. For example, I had hoped that "ich war wählen" could always be translated into "ich bin wählen gegangen", as depicted in my earlier examples.

But this breaks down with the "ich war schwimmen, als es passiert ist" example, because this would then be translated as:



> Ich bin schwimmen gegangen, als es passiert ist.


 
This would imply that both actions (going swimming and something happening) are _simultaneous_, but you were clearly saying that the action of going swimming has _already occurred_ in this case when the other event happened.

Thus, to say the equivalent of "ich war schwimmen, als es passiert ist", we would (to make the event sequence clear) logically be forced instead to translate this into formal German as something like:



> Ich *war* schwimmen *gegangen*, als es passiert ist.


 
However, in the simpler case, when someone asks you on the phone what you did yesterday, and you reply (for example) "ich war schwimmen", this clearly implies "ich *bin* schwimmen *gegangen*", not "ich war schwimmen gegangen" (Plusquamperfekt).

So it seems that the correct formal German translation is sometimes *bin...gegangen* and sometimes *war...gegangen*, depending on context.

Am I correct here?

Abba


----------



## berndf

ABBA Stanza said:


> So it seems that the correct formal German translation is sometimes *bin...gegangen* and sometimes *war...gegangen*, depending on context.
> 
> Am I correct here?
> 
> Abba


Yes. If there is no other past event to which it is compared then the pluperfect makes no sense as in the dialogue "Was hast Du gestern gemacht?" "Ich war schwimmen". In this case you would replace it by "Ich bin schwimmen gegangen" or "Ich ging schwimmen", depending on regional tilt.


----------

