1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: German
  4. >
  5. "Er ist im Meer geschwommen."

"Er ist im Meer geschwommen."

Translation:He swam in the sea.

June 18, 2013



I remember schwimmen coming with sein when the swimming action is showing a direction. Like swimming across a river or lake. And schwimmen comes with haben when it talks about just swimming around. Is that true?


See http://www.canoo.net/services/OnlineGrammar/Wort/Verb/Tempora/HabenSein.html?lang=en#Anchor-Vergangenheit-14210.

Basically, it's common to use 'sein' with some intransitive movement verbs like 'schwimmen', 'fahren', 'fliegen', etc. even if there isn't a direction.


why is it "Er ist im Meer geschommen" and not "er hat im..."?


Schwimmen is a Verb that goes with sein. Different than Englisch.


There are good explanations on this page.


I've been wondering that too


He swam in the sea. Not "he has swum in the sea"


The question is in the present perfect (perfekt) tense. Er ist geschwommen = he has swum. Er schwamm = he swam (in the imperfect tense.)

See: http://german.about.com/library/verbs/blverb_past.htm


German has been my second language since I was a little guy, but english is my first and no one says "he swum in the lake" people say "he swam in the lake" or "he went swimming in the lake". "Er schwamm" is called Präteritum or Simple past. "Er ist geschommen" is called the "Perfect" tense and in german is called "Perfekt"


Correct, the answer isn't "he swum in the lake" it's "he has swum in the lake". Without 'has' it would be, as you said, "he swam" because then it wouldn't be the present perfect, it would be the simple past.

Some native English speakers seem to think that "he has swam" is fine. It's not and it sounds horrible. The past participle of "swim" is "swum".

Anyone telling you that "he has swam" is acceptable is also likely to say things like "I have ran..." instead of "I have run..." and that's because they haven't studied English in any detail.

It's important that we all understand the difference between 'speaking colloquially' and 'speaking in an uneducated manner'. That's not meant to insult but learners have the right to know the difference. If you use the simple past with "have" and "had" instead of the correct past participle, you will sound uneducated. It's like saying "I would of" instead of "I would have". It has nothing to do with 'common usage' and is only common among certain 'classes' (I hate that word in this context but England has a class system and it's the only way I know how to adequately explain this).


In the dialect where I live ( which has nothing to do with being more or less of a language) most would never say "I have drunk so many glasses of water" , "She has swum in the lake for the last time." or " I have shaven for the last time" We removed that out of our speech, perhaps because it feels awkward to say and it just doesn't feel right to the ear. It is "proper" but not to everyone or most.

In Austria and Switzerland they also do not use certain grammatical rules in a similar way. They, as well as the Swiss, do not use simple past or Präteritum. But it is still a language, just a different dialect of one.


Yes, you removed "She has swum..." but I don't think you're saying that you replaced it with "She has swam"? Perhaps you're saying that the simple past is more common: "She swam"? In which case, that makes sense because we also do that here! Saying "she has swum three times today" is a bit formal so most would say "She swam three times today". That doesn't make the word "swum" itself archaic ('archaic' means something completely different!) because it's still the past participle of "swim", it just means that people don't usually use it because they use a different tense entirely which doesn't require the use of "swum". I believe I said this in my last post.


The simple past/Präteritum is also the imperfect tense. The tenses have various names. The important thing is you have to try to keep in the same tense as the question (perfect "he has...") and the correct English in that tense is "swum".


But to correctly translate from german to english you do not have to keep the hat/has tense structure and in many cases to do so would be a mistranslation. From what I have read there is no semantic difference between german preterite and perfect - they both mean exactly the same thing. This is not the case in english.

"He swam in the sea" means a different thing to "he has swum in the sea" and I think the german "Er ist im Meer geschwommen" means more the first.

"Swum" for english simple past is archaic and so really shouldn't be given in statement without "has/have".


It's not archaic just less known. Same as drunk, sung etc. People misuse it often since these verbs are slightly irregular in that the simple past is not the same as the participle


Happypeach... Du bist total falsch!


I don't think it is the same...Duo seems to have managed to differentiate between them.


thanks, i thought i was going crazy when it rejected 'swam'


I've swum in there before.


"He swam in the sea" was now accepted.


I have been speaking English for 35 years and have never until this moment said the word "swum."


Perhaps because you've never had cause to use the past participle when discussing swimming? I.e. maybe you've always used the simple past and said "I swam..."

If you use the past participle correctly in other cases, then there should be no reason not to for "swim" e.g. "I have run 1000 miles", "I had just begun when...", "I had seen the light" etc. (you wouldn't say "I had saw the light" would you?!)


Native english speaker here. There is nothing wrong with swum. It's not dying out and is still very much in use, also in American English.


Thank you! I am Canadian and no one here says swum.


why is 'swum' and 'swam' correct?


Whether you choose "swim" or "swum" depends on what tense you're trying to use. This German sentence can be translated into either the past perfect tense (he had swum), or the simple past tense (he swam).


Do you mean "he has swum?"


So what is wrong with “He did swim in the sea.”? It was a past action!


Two questions related: 1. We cannot distinguish sea (n) from bay or lake (both m) in this sentence 2. He has been swimming in the sea. How would I say that? Thanks


Yes, I was kind of wondering the same thing: wouldn't 'Er hast im Meer geschwommen.' be correct and mean the same as well?


'Schwimmen' goes with the verb to be (sein) and not the verb to have (haben). (See also huttcho66 below). By the way, one other thing I should point out; 'er' is the third person while you have 'hast', which is second person.


Oh, cool, thanks for both corrections!


"He has been swimming in the sea" would be something like "Er war im Meer geschwommen" with use of the Präteritum + Partizip 2. However, I couldn't agree more that it's impossible to exclude the lake option here. Reporting.


Wouldn't the lake be "der See"? "Er ist im See geschwommen." "He has swum in the lake."


Can I use the word Ozean instead of Meer?


"Er ist im Meer geschwommen" ist falsch?


I can't be the only one who absentmindedly heard "Er ist immer geschwommen."


Warum see ist falch?


Why is it "geschwommen" and not "geschwommt" or some other such ending?


In this sentence can we replace 'im' with 'in dem'? If no - OK If yes - Will the 'in dem' sentence have the exact same meaning as the 'im'; And is it ok to use 'in dem' in a routine conversation in place of 'im' ? Thanks :)

Learn German in just 5 minutes a day. For free.