Just so those of you leaving English know, "have swum" is almost never used in spoken English (or written for that matter), but rather "swam" would always be used. "Swum" just sounds weird but it is a word...
omg the fact that your profile pic is a thumbs up is the icing on the cake hahahahahahahah
Well, as for me, I have swum in the sea, so I guess it matters at what reading level most of your friends or associates happen to be.
really? Swum is the correct word? I would say "swam" everytime, swum just looks wrong...
Your example is very good. I tend to use swam and swum interchangibly, such as "I swum the race yesterday", which is not correct.
It's a little complicated.
"Sind" means "are"... except when used, like this example, as a "helper" verb with a past participle. In English, the helper verb is always "to have"... but in German it can sometimes be "sein" - usually when the past participle is a verb that indicates motion, travel etc..
So it doesn't literally translate as "have", but for all intents and purposes if you were to translate the entire sentence into a meaningful corresponding sentence in English, yes, you'd have to translate it as "have".
Does that make sense, or have I just made it more complicated?
I thought that sein would only be used in a change of condition or location and everything else would be haben?
This article explains it:
I guess you would count swimming as "a change of location".
Nice explanation I must say. Also, if we use haben here"Wir sind im Meer geschwommen", does it make sense?
Ignore if this reference if you are anti-... but in the church, they say things like "Christ is come. Christ is risen. Christ will come again." English was once spoken that way too...
Do the German equivalents of those sentences take a different form as well?
I think this is like French, le passé composé. Être/sind and avoir/haben are auxiliary verbs.
I'm not a native speaker but from what I've learned, "in the sea" refers to being specifically into the water, swiming, surfing, sailing, etc. And in German it would be "im Meer".
"At the sea" only infers proximity. You could be at the shore, or in a beach house a few meters away from the sea, etc. And this would be "am Meer" in German.
Is that the reason why this is a dative case ? To indicate that the activity is under water ?
"im Meer" = "in to the sea" ?
In fact it's dative rather than accusative, because there is no directional movement. Swimming is movement, but there is not specificed directional component e.g. the sentence does not respond to 'Wohin'. If you said 'Wir sind ins (in das) Meer geschwommen' it would imply that directional 'wohin' sense and would translate more to 'We swam into the sea' e.g. from the river.
My inclination as an American English speaker is to say, 'We went swimming.' I would never say, 'We have swum.' And unless it was a very direct response to a question such as 'What were you doing at the time?' I would not say, 'We were swimming.'
Why is no one noting that "the sea" is "die See". This sentence's dative construction of "im See" can not mean the sea. Rather "der See" means "the lake", yet Duolingo will not accept lake in the answer.
I'm glad someone else noticed that---der See is the 'the lake' and therefore am See must be 'in the lake.'
Through recognition of the conjugated forms of the verb.
That's one of the more difficult aspects of language, no? It's why children (and many of my ESL friends) say "I sitted on the bench."
How do we know whether to use "sein" or "haben" as the helping verb? Is it just memorization or is it optional?
Memorization, but with the rule of thumb that if it concerns movement, it is likely sein.
Because Wir is "We" and sind is the necessary auxiliary verb when forming the past tense with a verb that indicates personal movement, such as schwimmen/geschwommen.
"To reiterate"? I'm not sure what you mean by that.
However, in English, "We were swimming . . . " and "we swam . . ." are pretty much the same and are both valid translations of "Wir sind im Meer geschwommen."
Why is "We have swam in the sea", not accepted. If 'sind' also means have, then this should be accepted?
Today we swim.
Yesterday we sw
We have sw
um in the sea and in the lake.
And sind does not mean "have". At all. It is, however, the auxiliary verb used auf Deutsch with the past participle for verbs describing motion. Z.B., :
- Ich bin gerennen.
- Wir sind gegangen.
- Er ist gelaufen.
- Du bist geschwommen.
English uses "have" [exclusively?] for main verb past participles. German uses haben for non-motion verbs:
- Ich habe gegegessen.
- Er hat gelesen.
- Wir haben gesagt.
I was behind in my understanding of non-motion and motion verbs. I watched a Youtube video that explained it well. Now I am straight. Thanks for the response.