Translation:The building was being shown to the new parents.
This sentence has confused me and I need some help to make sure I understand.
Is this sentence in the past tense, because of "blev vist"? Having "being" in the English translation makes it suggest it's happening right now. Maybe I'm reading too much into this.
As a follow-up, are the below correct when I apply this sentence to other tenses...?
Present tense: Bygningen bliver vist til de > The building is (being) shown to the...
Present perfect tense: Bygningen er blivet vist til de > The building has been shown to the...
Future tense: Bygningen vil blive vist til de... > The building will be shown to the...
Rightly or wrongly (to keep things simple), I have come to the conclusion that "was...", "was being...", "were..." or any combination with a verb to indicate the passive past all mean the same thing, which is "got". I think "being" is just an extra variant that isn't needed. I am happy to be told otherwise. So all these variations in this context mean "blev vist". I don't think "var vist" works, as I assume that is translated to "was showed", which doesn't sound right to my ears.
Well, "was showed" doesn't sound right because it is incorrect English; the participle is not "showed" but "shown".
Duo translates blev vist here as "was being shown". If the phrase could equally well be translated as "was shown", then I don't understand why Duo would insert the word "being". That's why I suspect that there must be a difference.
The English Wiktionary https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/showed says that using showed as past participle of show is done only in the US, and even there it is "sometimes proscribed". It cites Garner's Modern American Usage as saying that shown "is mandatory for passives." (And its use in the sentence here is as a passive.)