# Present simple in European languages



## Santorini1

Just looking through EFL text books and seeing the many ways in which  usage of the present simple is defined . . . I was wondering which  European languages - if any - use it differently?


----------



## tamoka

hi,

well, in Romanian for example, the present simple is also used for continuous actions (in lack of a Romanian "present continuous"). and if i`m not mistaken it`s the same for French. perhaps for all Romance languages. 

hope this helps


----------



## cyberpedant

Spanish is the only romance language I'm acquainted with that employs both present continuous (e.g. estoy caminando—I'm walking) and present simple (camino—I walk).


----------



## Alxmrphi

cyberpedant said:


> Spanish is the only romance language I'm acquainted with that employs both present continuous (e.g. estoy caminando—I'm walking) and present simple (camino—I walk).



Italian is the same, however the uses don't match up to the odd way that English uses present simple / continuous (_sto camminando_,_ cammino_).


----------



## Santorini1

Thank you. So, what I'm wondering is whether EFL teaching needs to be so detailed about when to use the present simple . . . ."with adverbs of frequency, to show an action is repeated or usual, with an adjective, with a location" etc. Can't we just suggest students use it as they would in their own language?


----------



## Alxmrphi

> Can't we just suggest students use it as they would in their own language?


 
If you did that, well, then... let's take Romance speakers first of all, if you build that association then they would use the present simple (in English) to reply to unique actions (the way it works in their native language) and produce sentences like:

A: _I thought I heard a noise up here, what are you doing with that pen and paper?_
B: _I write a letter_.

Because that's the way they'd use it in their native language, so it's important to make it clear about a distinction.
The idea is the way we use the present simple in English, falls into a subcategory of how speakers use it in their native language, so to create a 1=1 comparison would lead to an overgeneralisation that would make them think the tenses were equal.


----------



## Santorini1

Good point, I see that. Many thanks.


----------



## tamoka

i`m pretty sure that`s not a good idea. every english teacher i have ever had has been adamant about NEVER EVER using tenses as i would in my native language and i agree. being english, you have a sense of the language and even if you do not necessarily know every single one of the cases in which the tense is used, you JUST KNOW when to use it right. for non-native speakers it takes a lot of time and practice to automatically use a tense correctly.
so i think the authors of the text book were right to include every possible situation. the english tense system has specific uses for everything! in romanian, for example, it`s definitely not like that. filtering english through one`s native language could lead to major mistakes and i would definitely not recommend it.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

tamoka said:


> hi,
> 
> well, in Romanian for example, the present simple is also used for continuous actions (in lack of a Romanian "present continuous"). and if i`m not mistaken it`s the same for French. perhaps for all Romance languages.
> 
> hope this helps


 
You're right for French . There is no present continuous, but the phrase _être en train de_ can be used as to emphasize the idea of continuity. A friend asking _" Qu'est-ce que tu fais  maintenant ? " _( What are you doing right now ? ) , I can answer _" Je lis " _( I am reading ) which is correct,but it would sound a bit curt, and I'd rather say " Je suis en train de lire". Both choices are possible in many circumstances.


----------



## tamoka

J.F. de TROYES said:


> You're right for French . There is no present continuous, but the phrase _être en train de_ can be used as to emphasize the idea of continuity. A friend asking _" Qu'est-ce que tu fais  maintenant ? " _( What are you doing right now ? ) , I can answer _" Je lis " _( I am reading ) which is correct,but it would sound a bit curt, and I'd rather say " Je suis en train de lire". Both choices are possible in many circumstances.




yes, i know about that phrase, there are equivalents in romanian too, but it`s not the same as having a specific tense to express continuity.


----------



## merquiades

Santorini1 said:


> Thank you. So, what I'm wondering is whether EFL teaching needs to be so detailed about when to use the present simple . . . ."with adverbs of frequency, to show an action is repeated or usual, with an adjective, with a location" etc. Can't we just suggest students use it as they would in their own language?



No, I would suggest studying every case where the present simple or present continuous is used giving many examples if possible.  In Spanish or Italian this tense "estoy cantando/ sto cantando" is only used in the sense of "right now, at this very moment" and I don't believe it's even compulsory all the time. Ora prendo (sto prendendo) il treno per Roma.  In English there is a clear difference in meaning, so you've got to study the grammar. "Right now I take the train to Rome" would sound wrong.

Actually maybe it's better for Italians to study when the present simple is used in their language and then pointing out the cases it can't be used the same way in English.


----------



## apmoy70

tamoka said:


> hi,
> 
> well, in Romanian for example, the present simple is also used for continuous actions (in lack of a Romanian "present continuous"). and if i`m not mistaken it`s the same for French. perhaps for all Romance languages.
> 
> hope this helps


And in Greek too. There's no present continuous; e.g «γράφω» ('ɣrafo) describes both _I'm writing_ and _I write_


----------



## jazyk

Many European languages have a continuous tense: (Portuguese) estou cantando or estou a cantar, (Spanish) estoy cantando, (Italian) sto cantando or sto a cantare, (Catalan) estic cantant. Whether it is always used like English is another matter, at least for me.


----------



## Rallino

I don't know what European Languages mean -- If you mean the languages spoken in Europe like German, Croatian, Finnish etc., Turkish has simple present and present continuous separately, i.e. _geliyorum = I am coming_ vs. _gelirim = I come_ (though their usage doesn't 1-1 match with their English equivalents.)

If I am not wrong Hungarian doesn't have a distinction: Olvasok = I read / I am reading.


----------



## muhahaa

In Finnish syön (simple, "I eat") / olen syömässä ("be" progressive, "I am eating"). They aren't used in the exactly same way as in English. The simple present can also be progressive or future.


----------



## Rallino

muhahaa said:


> In Finnish syön (simple, "I eat") / olen syömässä ("be" progressive, "I am eating"). They aren't used in the exactly same way as in English. The simple present can also be progressive or future.



 The same is true for Turkish.


----------



## koniecswiata

I once read that there is a kind of European Grammatical Sprachbund (this means certain similarities of a linguistic nature that coincides with geography and not necessarily language grouping).  It stated that languages in Europe that had a "present continuous tense--or continuous forms in general" tended to be peripheral (English, Spanish, Portuguese, Finish, Turkish, apparently also British celtic languages) in their location in Europe.  They are all on the "edge" of Europe, and that makes them unique in certain ways, one being that they have continuous verbal forms--of course, they may be used differently from each other, also, some like Turkish or Finnish don't necessarily construct it by using auxiliary verbs + present participles.  
Also, there is some similarity between English use of continuous verb forms and Slavic languages' use of "imperfective verb aspects" (though it is also not the same).


----------



## TitTornade

Hi,
Yes, you must be careful with direct translation of the tense:
Present simple is used in French: "Paul vit à Londres depuis 2 ans"
while present perfect is used in English: "Paul has lived in London for 2 years."


----------



## Istriano

merquiades said:


> No, I would suggest studying every case where the present simple or present continuous is used giving many examples if possible.  In Spanish or Italian this tense "estoy cantando/ sto cantando" is only used in the sense of "right now, at this very moment" and I don't believe it's even compulsory all the time.



In Brazilian Portuguese, and in Peninsular Spanish, you can use the simple present instead of the contineous, but it sounds old-fashioned, and poetic.
I'd say the simple:continuous relationship in English is almost the same as in Brazilian Portuguese and in Peninsular Spanish.

There are some fixed expressions tho, in which using the simple form does not sound old-fashioned, but the simple form is not obligatory:

_Qué haces ~ Qué estas haciendo_  What are you doing?
_Quem fala ~ Quem está falando _  Who's on the phone?

But these are exceptions to the rule.
(Similar to English:_ I understand_ rather than_ I'm understanding;
_But notice that in Portuguese you can say _
Entendo/Estou entendendo _I understand; _Eu sei/Estou sabendo_. I know).

John Butt & Carmen Benjamin
in the 4th edition of _''A New Reference Grammar of Spoken Spanish''_
state:



> 'Peninsular informants said *está lloviendo *on seeing rain through the window, and thought that *llueve*, in this case, sounded vaguely poetic or archaic'


.


I've noticed than in Italian they don't use the progressive form that much,
which is similar to old English and some varieties of Latin American Spanish.


----------



## Istriano

koniecswiata said:


> Also, there is some similarity between English use of continuous verb forms and Slavic languages' use of "imperfective verb aspects" (though it is also not the same).



I've noticed here in Istria something close to ''imperfectivization'', imperfect aspect is being abused and used when perfect aspect is expected:

_Zatvaraj vrata!_ (Be closing the door!) instead of
_Zatvori vrata!_ (Close the door!)

Which is similar to _gerundismo _in Brazil:

_Nós vamos estar lhe mandando._ (We will be sending you) instead of
_Nós vamos lhe mandar._ (We will send you).

In Spanish, the use of reflexive pronoun can mark the action/verb as perfective:
_No como el pescado._ (I don't [ever] eat fish). [imperfective]  
_No me como el pescado. _would be funny (I would interprete it as perfective future action).


----------



## Frank78

In German the present tense (there's only one) can be used for present actions (regular and ongoing), for the future and for perfect. 

Ich arbeite = I work / I'm working / I have worked / I have been working / I will work / I'm going to work

Of course, there are other word in such a sentence that tell you if it's present, perfect or future.


----------



## Frenchlover1

J.F. de TROYES said:


> You're right for French . There is no present continuous, but the phrase _être en train de_ can be used as to emphasize the idea of continuity. A friend asking _" Qu'est-ce que tu fais  maintenant ? " _( What are you doing right now ? ) , I can answer _" Je lis " _( I am reading ) which is correct,but it would sound a bit curt, and I'd rather say " Je suis en train de lire". Both choices are possible in many circumstances.



The case is exactly the same in Norwegian!

If someone asks 'Hva gjør du?' (What are you doing?), I would answer 'Jeg leser' (I read), which is present simple. However, like in French, in Norwegian you can also specify the sentence so that it becomes more like present continuous, by saying 'Jeg holder på å lese', which equals 'Je suis en train de lire'.


----------

