# Germanic languages: Form to express present continuous tense



## laurent485

Another question is that in all the other Germanic languages, there is not a specific form to express present continuous tense, in stead a presnet tense is used to carry out this function, while English has the specific form of continuous tense and progressive tense : (ex: I am reading and I have been reading). Anyone has an idea of the origin of this particularity in English? Thanks.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


laurent485 said:


> Another question is that in all the other Germanic languages, there is not a specific form to express present continuous tense, in stead a presnet tense is used to carry out this function


Well, as for Dutch, we _do_ have a very specific form:

I play = ik speel
I am playing = ik ben aan het spelen
I was playing = ik was aan het spelen.

Apart from some details in usage it's almost a 1:1 match. Okay, Dutch doesn't use a present participle, but it's basically the same. For one or another silly reason, this enormously frequently used 'form' hardly (never?) show up in conjugation tables (genre verbix.com).



> while English has the specific form of continuous tense and progressive tense : (ex: I am reading and I have been reading). Anyone has an idea of the origin of this particularity in English? Thanks.


So, I don't think it's a particularity in English.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## berndf

Frank06 said:


> Well, as for Dutch, we _do_ have a very specific form:
> 
> I play = ik speel
> I am playing = ik ben aan het spelen
> I was playing = ik was aan het spelen.
> 
> Apart from some details in usage it's almost a 1:1 match. Okay, Dutch doesn't use a present participle, but it's basically the same. For one or another silly reason, this enormously frequently used 'form' hardly (never?) show up in conjugation tables (genre verbix.com).


This form exists in German too. Especially in Rhine-Franconian dialects (which are genetically close to Dutch) this form is as common as it is in Dutch. There are two reasons why it is not considered a "proper" verb form:
1. The form is frowned upon as dialectal or vulgar.
2. Contrary to the English continuous form, use of this form is not systematic in the sense that it is not* mandatory* when the verb has a progressive aspect. 

Is this very different in Dutch? I.e.:
1. Could you imaging the Queen to use this form in a throne speech?
2. Would it sound "odd", if you used the simple present tense when the verb clearly has a progressive aspect?


----------



## Hulalessar

One theory is that the form grew out of contact with Celtic languages. That would not of course explain the existence of the form in Dutch. It seems that some languages develop the form and some do not - Spanish has it (though its use is not quite the same as in English) but French does not.


----------



## berndf

I found the following here (p.5):





> Also continuous tenses came into being: the present participle began life as a noun preceded by the preposition _on_, (_He was on reading_); the _on_ developed into the prefix _–a_ (_He was areading_) before being dropped entirely to form the continuous form we have today (_He was reading_).


If this explanation is correct, it was *originally* clearly a gerund and not a present participle as it appears in the modern continuous form. Bearing in mind that Dutch and German normally use the infinitive where English would use the gerund, the forms were originally not as different as they appear today.

According to this source, the English continuous form is a Middle English development in line with the development of other compound forms (e.g. future and perfect tenses). If this is correct explanations based on Celtic influence seem rather implausible.


----------



## Hulalessar

berndf said:


> ...explanations based on Celtic influence seem rather implausible.


 
I am inclined to agree. The influence of Celtic on OE was negligible. It would be odd if this feature alone had been adopted.


----------



## PaulQ

Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Well, as for Dutch, we _do_ have a very specific form:
> 
> I play = ik speel
> I am playing = ik ben aan het spelen
> I was playing = ik was aan het spelen.
> 
> Apart from some details in usage it's almost a 1:1 match. Okay, Dutch doesn't use a present participle, but it's basically the same. For one or another silly reason, this enormously frequently used 'form' hardly (never?) show up in conjugation tables (genre verbix.com).
> 
> 
> So, I don't think it's a particularity in English.
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank


This form does exist in English, although usually associated with verbs that require some sort of investigation.
"I am on the hunt for my car keys" = I am hunting for my car keys
"I am on the watch for poachers." = I am watching for poachers
I am on the lookout for a new tyre" = I am looking out for a new tyre.
also possibly
"She is on the game" = She is working as a prostitute - (vide: the oldest profession [game = profession] in the world.)


----------



## CapnPrep

PaulQ said:


> This form does exist in English, although usually associated with verbs that require some sort of investigation.


The examples you give do not involve verbs. _Hunt/watch/lookout/game_ are nouns.


----------



## Scholiast

Good evening, all.



> The examples you give do not involve verbs. _Hunt/watch/lookout/game_ are nouns



With all respect to CapnPrep (#8), I don't think PaulQ meant to suggest otherwise. In fact this semantic structure fits in nicely with Frank06's Dutch examples ("ik bin aan het spelen" &c.) and the explanation offered by berndf in #5 - also with modern German usage ("Meine Frau ist beim Schminken").

All the more so as at least in certain British English dialects, especially in Wales and Scotland (maybe Ireland too) one may still hear statements such as "He is at the singing" - i.e. "he is attending a choir-rehearsal"; "they are in farming" - i.e. "for a living they work/are working in agriculture".


----------



## CapnPrep

I was under the impression that this thread was about verbal syntax (or even conjugation, as Frank06 suggested above). Just as any English verb can be put into the _be V-ing_ form (whether or not the "semantic structure" makes sense, e.g. #_I am knowing Bulgarian_, #_I am believing in ghosts_), Dutch and German verbs also have fully productive periphrastic forms for expressing progressive aspect. In fact, all three languages have a variety of productive progressive forms. 

_On the hunt_ is not a verb form, and — as PaulQ noted — it is not available for every deverbal action noun: *_on the read_, *_on the play_, etc. It doesn't correspond to the Dutch/German constructions already mentioned; those languages in fact have the same preposition + noun structures: _auf der Jagd nach etw sein_, _op zoek zijn naar iets_, etc.

If the idea is just to find any syntactic construction that has a continuous/progressive meaning with some specific words, then every language has dozens/hundreds of them:


I am an engineering student. = I am studying engineering.
My name is Mike, and I'll be your server this evening. = I am waiting on your table.
I'm worried. = Something is worrying me.
My feet tell me you're a very bad dancer. = You are stepping on my toes.
etc.


----------



## Istriano

English progressive forms are relatively recent.
Until 1850ies it was possible to use the simple form instead, it was grammatical: _Right now it rains.
_With *as *the simple form is still common_:_ _I'm doing it right now as I speak._
Continuous passive forms were the last to appear:_
It was cleaned _and _They were cleaning _made a hybrid form_ It was cleaning, _and only in the 1880ies _it was being cleaned _appeared_._


----------



## Walshie79

PaulQ said:


> This form does exist in English, although usually associated with verbs that require some sort of investigation.
> "I am on the hunt for my car keys" = I am hunting for my car keys
> "I am on the watch for poachers." = I am watching for poachers
> I am on the lookout for a new tyre" = I am looking out for a new tyre.
> also possibly
> "She is on the game" = She is working as a prostitute - (vide: the oldest profession [game = profession] in the world.)



Those Dutch examples are directly parallel to the _a _+ -_ing_ forms; (_I'm a-going)_; which derive from _on _plus an original gerund- in English the gerund ending seems to have taken over from the present participle (which was _-end__(e)_ in Old English).


----------



## PaulQ

CapnPrep said:


> The examples you give do not involve verbs. _Hunt/watch/lookout/game_ are nouns.


It's a long time since I looked at Dutch, and I stand to be corrected but, as I understand it, ik ben aan* *het *spelen ≡ I am at *the *play, and play will thus be a noun or probably a gerund.

**on*  O.E. on, unstressed variant of an "in, on, into," from P.Gmc. (*cf. Du. aan*, Ger. an, Goth. ana "on, upon")


----------



## CapnPrep

PaulQ said:


> It's a long time since I looked at Dutch, and I stand to be corrected but, as I understand it, ik ben aan* *het *spelen ≡ I am at *the *play, and play will thus be a noun or probably a gerund.


It's the infinitive. Which is indeed a kind of verbal noun, but it is part of the paradigm of every verb. The closest thing we have in English, functionally, is the _-ing_ gerund form (which is not what appears in your examples). Some verbs have nominalizations that look like the bare form/short infinitive, e.g. _the hunt_, _the __watch_, _the __search_, _the __chase_, _the __look_, _the shop_, _the wish_, _the clamor_. But not all of these can appear in your construction: _on the ?search/*chase/*look/*shop/*wish/*clamor for_. At the same time, the nouns that do appear in the construction are not always directly related to a verb: 


_I am on the alert for intruders_ ≠ I am alerting (for) intruders.
So it looks to me like this is an idiom that allows a small set of nouns (_hunt_, _watch_, _prowl_, _look-out_, _alert_, ?_search_, ?_quest_, …) and that cannot be generalized to an entire semantic class of verbs (e.g. "verbs that require some sort of investigation"). And it has little to do with the progressive verb forms that are the topic of this thread.


----------



## Scholiast

Good day, everyone



> It's the infinitive. Which is indeed a kind of verbal noun, but it is part of the paradigm of every verb



Quite so. In all the languages known to me, infinitives can function as nouns:

_laborare est orare_

"To work is to pray"/"Working is praying"

And in Latin, the infinitive and gerundive forms converge in this much, that where the infinitive will be used in nominative and accusative roles, for the other cases the gerundive is required:

_Agrippina *natare* amabat_ - "Agrippina liked _to swim_"/"_swimming_"

_Agrippina *natando* effugit_ - "Agrippina escaped _by swimming_"

(With apologies to Tacitus).


----------



## Ben Jamin

Hulalessar said:


> One theory is that the form grew out of contact with Celtic languages. That would not of course explain the existence of the form in Dutch. It seems that some languages develop the form and some do not - Spanish has it (though its use is not quite the same as in English) but French does not.


Italian has it too.


----------



## koniecswiata

Really the concept of "present progressiveness" can be expressed in all European languages (maybe others too).  It's just that only certain languages overtly MARK this concept with a special verb form (English, Spanish, Italian, Celtic languages--apparently).  Other languages use a periphrastic construction (German, Dutch, others I suppose), while others would just express the concept with an adverb or a time phrase + regular present verb form (Polish, etc...).


----------



## CapnPrep

koniecswiata said:


> Other languages use a periphrastic construction (German, Dutch, others I suppose)


It's periphrastic in English, too (and in Spanish, Italian, Celtic — but this thread is about Germanic languages).


----------



## koniecswiata

In the case of the other Germanic languages it is periphrastic--not as a strictly verbal construction.  That is the distinction I would make.  It is a construction of verb + prepositional phrase.
Also, it is valid to bring in examples from languages further afield, especially if you are proposing that the concept is fairly "universal".


----------



## CapnPrep

That is not the usual definition of _periphrasis_. The English _be -ing_ form is periphrastic, in contrast to non-periphrastic progressive forms in languages like Turkish.

Anyway, as Frank06 pointed out, the _aan het_ construction might as well be considered part of the conjugation of Dutch verbs. It is very debatable whether _aan_ is an ordinary preposition here; _aan het spelen_ is definitely not an ordinary prepositional phrase. It is probably better to treat _aan het_ as a single verbal marker, more or less like the more general infinitival marker _te_ (cf. German _zu_). So _Ik ben aan het spelen_ can be analyzed much like _Ik zit te spelen_, which is another frequently-used periphrastic progressive form in Dutch.


----------



## merquiades

Walshie79 said:


> Those Dutch examples are directly parallel to the _a _+ -_ing_ forms; (_I'm a-going)_; which derive from _on _plus an original gerund- in English the gerund ending seems to have taken over from the present participle (which was _-end__(e)_ in Old English).



Hello. I have a few questions concerning this a+ ing form you are talking about.  Is "a" like a prefix?  Is "I'm a-going" the same as "I'm going" or is there a difference between them?  When do you use it?


----------



## CapnPrep

merquiades said:


> I have a few questions concerning this a+ ing form you are talking about.  Is "a" like a prefix?  Is "I'm a-going" the same as "I'm going" or is there a difference between them?  When do you use it?


There is a long thread about this in English Only:
*a-running ... prefix a- before verb.*


----------



## merquiades

CapnPrep said:


> There is a long thread about this in English Only:
> *a-running ... prefix a- before verb.*



Ok, thanks.  Awaiting, the times they are a-changing, alive, asleep... this is more familiar to me than I thought. I guess it's a bit folksy maybe... Don't come home adrinking with aloving on your mind. Now if that's the origin of the progressive tenses, I can see why they are considered periphrastic.


----------



## CapnPrep

They're considered periphrastic simply because they consist of more than one word: _be_ + the gerund-participle. It doesn't have anything to do with the origin of the construction. Similarly, the English perfect tenses (_have_/_be _[arch.] + past participle), the future (_will_ + base form, _going to/gonna_ + base form), the passive (_be_/_get_ + past participle), etc., are all periphrastic.


----------



## matakoweg

berndf said:


> This form exists in German too. Especially in Rhine-Franconian dialects (which are genetically close to Dutch) this form is as common as it is in Dutch. There are two reasons why it is not considered a "proper" verb form:
> 1. The form is frowned upon as dialectal or vulgar.
> 2. Contrary to the English continuous form, use of this form is not systematic in the sense that it is not* mandatory* when the verb has a progressive aspect.
> 
> Is this very different in Dutch? I.e.:
> 1. Could you imaging the Queen to use this form in a throne speech?
> 2. Would it sound "odd", if you used the simple present tense when the verb clearly has a progressive aspect?



The Dutch construction with "aan het (infinitive)" is not at all vulgar nor dialectal. I could imagine that the Queen would use it, although she hasn't in the last thone speeches. But it is not mandatory to use this construction.
This contruction cannot be used with stative verbs or verbs with punctual aspect:
Ik woon in Amsterdam. = I'm living in Amsterdam
* Ik ben in Amsterdam aan het wonen.

Ik ben mijn boek aan het zoeken.
* Ik ben mijn boek aan het vinden.


----------



## rayloom

Scholiast said:


> And in Latin, the infinitive and gerundive forms converge in this much, that where the infinitive will be used in nominative and accusative roles, for the other cases the gerundive is required:
> 
> _Agrippina *natare* amabat_ - "Agrippina liked _to swim_"/"_swimming_"
> 
> _Agrippina *natando* effugit_ - "Agrippina escaped _by swimming_"
> 
> (With apologies to Tacitus).



Hello,
Regarding the 2 phrases:
 While Latin has gerunds, "natando" is used here as a gerundive, not as a gerund (noun). Whereas, "natare" (infinitive) is used as a noun in the first phrase. So the 2 phrases aren't quite comparable. Correct me if I'm wrong.

In Arabic, the verbal noun (in the accusative) is interchangeable with the gerundive (formed from the active participle also in the accusative).
So while: "Agrippina natare amabat", natare can only be replaced by the infinitive (verbal noun) in Arabic, in "Agrippina natando effugit", natando can be replaced by an infinitive (accusative) or a gerundive in Arabic.


----------



## berndf

Scholiast said:


> And in Latin, the infinitive and gerundive forms converge in this much, that where the infinitive will be used in nominative and accusative roles, for the other cases the gerundive is required:
> 
> _Agrippina *natare* amabat_ - "Agrippina liked _to swim_"/"_swimming_"
> 
> _Agrippina *natando* effugit_ - "Agrippina escaped _by swimming_"
> 
> (With apologies to Tacitus).


I am a bit confused. Isn't _natando _in the above sentence an adverbially used ablative gerund (click)? As a gerundive it doesn't make much sense semantically (passive future).


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> I am a bit confused. Isn't _natando _in the above sentence an adverbially used ablative gerund (click)? As a gerundive it doesn't make much sense semantically (passive future).


I think this is probably just a difference in terminology. "Gerundive" can be used as a purely morphological term to refer to the _-nd-_ form of the verb (whatever its function). The term "gerund" then refers to one particular use of the neuter singular gerundive form in oblique cases.


----------

