started talking/started to talk/starting to talk

[Zeigi]

Hallo,
ich komme nochmal auf das Thema "Verb + Infinitiv oder Verb + Gerundium" mit verschiedenen Bedeutungen zurück.
Marge started talking really fast. - Marge begann (am Anfang) sehr schnell zu sprechen.
Marge started to talk really fast. - Marge begann sehr schnell zu sprechen.
Marge is starting to talk really fast. - Marge ist gerade dabei sehr schnell zu sprechen.
Bei der Übersetzung bin ich mir nicht sicher. Und die unterschiedliche Bedeutung erschließt sich mir hierbei überhaupt nicht.
Hier die Originaldatei:
http://www.englishpage.com/gerunds/geru ... t_list.htm
Bitte um Hilfe.
LG,

Uwe

[Adrox98]

Das Gerundium entspricht dem substantivierten Verb (Nominalisierung) oder dem erweiterten Infinitiv mit zu im Deutschen.
Da ich selber noch dabei bin mein Englisch zu verbessern will ich jetzt nichts Falsches sagen aber ich glaube so könnte es passen:

Marge started talking really fast. = Marge hat das Reden wirklich schnell gestartet (das Reden ist substantiviert)
Marge started to talk really fast. = Marge hat gestartet um wirklich schnell zu reden
Marge is starting to talk really fast. = Marge startet jetzt um wirklich schnell zu reden

Bin mir nicht ganz sicher aber ich glaube das passt. Bitte korrigiert mich wenn ich falsch liege das interessiert mich gerade selber

[tiorthan]

Marge started talking really fast. = Marge hat das Reden wirklich schnell gestartet (das Reden ist substantiviert)
Marge started to talk really fast. = Marge hat gestartet um wirklich schnell zu reden
Marge is starting to talk really fast. = Marge startet jetzt um wirklich schnell zu reden

Leider überhaupt nicht. Du hast zwar Recht, dass die ing-Form hier ein Substantiv ist, aber das spiegelt sich nicht in der Übersetzung wieder.
Es gibt keinen echten Unterschied zwischen den beiden ersten. Beide entsprechen dem Deutschen "Marge begann wirklich schnell zu reden". Hier wird auch im Deutschen das Präteritum benutzt, denn so einen Satz benutzt man nur in einer Erzählung oder einem Bericht.
Der dritte Satz ist einfach nur "Marge beginnt wirklich schnell zu reden". Den Continuous-Aspekt würden wir im Deutschen normalerweise einfach aus dem Kontext schließen.

[Adrox98]

Achso, danke. Das Gerundium ist bei mir noch eine Baustelle

[Adrox98]

Wie erkennt man eigentlich einen Unterschied in der Bedeutung zwischen dem Infinitiv und dem Gerundium. Ich weiß nur, dass das Gerundium nach bestimmten Verben sowie nach Präpositionen folgt

[tiorthan]

Man erkennt den Unterschied aus Erfahrung mit dem jeweiligen Verb. Das ist leider die Art wie die meisten menschlichen Sprachen funktionieren: Erfahrung.

[Adrox98]

Ok, bin gerade seit einer Woche dabei, die Dinge, die ich normalerweise auf Deutsch mache auf Englisch zu machen. Ich kann aber schon sehr gut Texte und Videos verstehen (ohne sie zu übersetzen). Des Öfteren lerne ich sogar viele neue Wörter dazu. Meine Vermutung ist, dass mein Wortschatz zwischen 2.000 bis 2.500 Wörter bis jetzt liegt

[tiorthan]

Oh I can switch to English then. 2000 to 2500 words isn't bad for a second language speaker.

It can take a long time to really find a difference between "started doing" and "started to do" (and most other verbs that allow both ing- and to-Infinitives). In most cases it's not even a difference in meaning but rather a subtle difference that it is more likely (but far from certain) to find one form in a certain context and the other in other contexts. Often, even native speakers do not realize that because the choice of words is largely subconscious.

[Adrox98]

I'm not sure but I guess that the amount of words I know is between 2.000 and 2.500 words. I got this amount of words by reading many texts and using a dictionary as help. More important is that I improve my English skills by collecting more experience in writing and speaking. I have been getting my interest in the English language for 2 weeks. The problem is that I have a big knowledge in English grammar due to school and englisch-hilfen.de but practise is missing in writing and speaking. This is why I want to improve my English. I noticed that I already do some things in English automatically but my English isn't the best.

It's normal that native speakers choose words subconsciously. I rarely think about the words I use in German except in some situations

[tiorthan]

I'm not sure but I guess that the amount of words I know is between 2.000 and 2.500 words.

You can get an estimate from sites like http://my.vocabularysize.com/

I have been getting my interest in the English language for 2 weeks.

That's not correct but what exactly do you mean by that?
Have you been interested in the English language only for the last two weeks?

[Adrox98]

I mean that I got the interest two weeks ago. Due to using "for" I thought I have to use the Present Perfect Progressive

Was the remainder of the text correct?

hahah xD, this site estimates that I know 4.910 words. This is never correct

[tiorthan]

I mean that I got the interest two weeks ago.

Ok. I would have said something like "I got interested in the English language two weeks ago".

Due to using "for" I thought I have to use the Present Perfect Progressive

The "due to" doesn't make sense. Did you mean:
As for using "for" ...

"For" is mostly used with a Perfect (albeit not exclusively), it doesn't matter if that's also a Progressive or not.

Was the remainder of the text correct?

Not quite. Things like "big knowledge" or "practice is missing" aren't really used like that but they're not technically wrong.

hahah xD, this site estimates that I know 4.910 words. This is never correct

Well, it's difficult to get an exact estimate just from one run, but the test is rather good overall.

[Adrox98]

Due to using "for" I thought I have to use the Present Perfect Progressive

Due to = wegen?
When do I use Present Perfect Progressive then?
I don't understand what "As for" means (I don't think that it means "als für") and why can't I say "big knowledge" or "practice is missing" and what can I use instead?

[tiorthan]

Oh I get it now.

Due to using "for"

I'm not sure how to explain why this is wrong, but it is wrong. Traditionally, you'd use "due to" as an adjective, which means you couldn't even use it in this sentence at all.

This sentence should have been rendered like this:
Because of "for" I thought I had to use the Present Perfect Progressive.

This doesn't use "using" because that would have been really difficult to incorporate. It also uses "because of" because it fits the clause that follows much better. And finally you also need "had" here, because you're talking about an action you did in the past.

When do I use Present Perfect Progressive then?

It's used when you want to express that something either started in the past and continues in (or through) the present or for something that started in the past and continued until very recently (so that the speaker considers the end to be in the present) and you want to express that the described action took some time or continued throughout a duration.

There is a whole nother layer of "stuff" (technical term   ) in the tenses, times and aspects of English once you start analyzing them in depth, but that would be a bit over the top in this thread I'd say.

I don't understand what "As for" means (I don't think that it means "als für")

"As for" (or "as to" in other contexts) means with regards to or with reference to (German: bezüglich).

By the way, using an English-English dictionary is a good idea once you start getting the gist of things without having to translate it to yourself.

why can't I say "big knowledge" or "practice is missing" and what can I use instead?

There is no real reason other than that it isn't used like that. As I said, it's not technically wrong. It's grammatical and it is technically a combination of words that makes sense but they are just not used like that. A lot of the English language works like that, actually.

You may have found the phrase "little knowledge"? "Little" doesn't mean "klein" in this case but "wenig" just like in "a little known fact". The opposite of that is not "bit" but "a lot". You can have "a lot of knowledge", so you could have said "I have a lot of knowledge about English grammar".

Note that I used "knowledge about" and not "in". You cannot have knowledge "in" anything in English. Instead you have "knowledge of" or "knowledge about". You use "of" when you have an understanding of the thing itself and "about" when the understanding is (or derives from) an external point of view.

And lastly, practice isn't something that can go missing. You could have said "I need practice". Also note the spelling. Practice with a C is the noun and the spelling of the verb in American English. Practise with an S is the verb in British English.

[Adrox98]

Thanks for this explanation. I understand these things now and I noticed that it makes sense.

For example the word "in":
"in" is a preposition and these words are often used differently in many languages and I must regard this.

Besides I must get used to using the different tenses and the gerunds correctly.

Do you use the tenses subconsciously yet?