"I am wearing a shoe."
Translation:Ik draag een schoen.
Ik ben draag een schoen How come this is in correct? I know I can leave out ben but is it wrong to say it like above?
Ben is for saying "I am... as in "i am a superhero" Or "i am an apple" Not "i am wearing a dress to the party"
This is my best guess nd what i have gathered and should not be taken as law... il ask susande!!!
Dutch doesn't seem to use the same strategy for using "to be" as a helper as English does. Both "I wear pants" and "I am wearing pants" would be "ik draag een broek." I can't speak for the dutch about what it would sound like to them to try to add the "ben" in there but I imagine it would sound like something extra and out of place, like if you tried to say something like "I have am a boy."
There is no such thing as continuous time in Dutch (and many other languages). Eventual continuity of something comes simply from the context or is just irrelevant. So both continuous and simple tense will convert to the only present tense available (hence ben is not allowed in this sentence). To make it even more confusing in some languages the verb respective to English "to be" (in correct form) is used to represent future our past tense, for example in Polish you have "będę nosił" (będę is future version of to be and nosił is the correct version of wear).