nornen:

I can't find any in the Fundamento (i.e. in 1. La 16-regula gramatiko; 2. la « Universala Vortaro »; 3. la « Ekzercaro »). Almost all active participles are used attributively, and the only compound tenses I managed to find were these:

estis dirinta (past perfect / plus-quam-perfectum)
estos dirinta (future perfect / futurum exactum)
estus dirinta (conditional perfect / subjunctive perfect)
estu dirinta (imperative perfect / jussiv perfect / hortativ perfect)
esti dirinta (infinitive perfect)

All those forms appear to express more likely "perfect" than "progressive".

Where in the Fundamento did you find progressive forms?

Ah, this was my mistake - it has been some time since I looked them over. I remembered that the gramatiko had the participle forms in it and assumed it also had the 'esti' construction as well. I should have looked that up before typing it here!
That said, since the -inta ending parallels the -anta ending, if the perfect compound tenses you show are usable, the progressive compound tenses also can be. Native English speakers like myself need to be careful not to overuse it, though, because it is only very rarely necessary to say 'estas faranta' instead of just 'faras.' The perfect compound tenses you show would be much more important to differentiate, in my opinion.

sparksbet:That said, since the -inta ending parallels the -anta ending, if the perfect compound tenses you show are usable, the progressive compound tenses also can be.

I cannot quite follow your train of thought. How can we conclude from the fact that there is a perfect, the fact that there also will be a progressive. Various languages (among them e.g. Latin and (ancient) Greek) do have a perfect, but do not have a progressive.

I kept on searching Zamenhof's work, and now comes a real puzzler:
In his translation of the old Testament, you find quite a lot of "est~ ~anta" contructions, however they do not translate into English progressive forms:

LLZ:Genesis 19:29 Kaj kiam Dio estis pereiganta la urbojn de la ĉirkaŭaĵo, Li rememoris pri Abraham, kaj Li elirigis Loton el la mezo de la ruinigado, kiam Li estis ruiniganta la urbojn, en kiuj loĝis Lot.

One might expect these forms to be past progressive, but in English we find:

King James:Genesis 19:29 And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.

Same here:

LLZ:Exodus 34:29 Kiam Moseo estis malsupreniranta de la monto Sinaj kaj la du tabeloj de atesto estis en la manoj de Moseo dum lia malsuprenirado de la monto, Moseo ne sciis, ke la haŭto de lia vizaĝo lumradiis pro tio, ke li parolis kun Li.

King James:Exodus 34:29 And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.

I really don't understand what is happening here, and I don't quite see a relation between the English progressive and Esperanto "est~ ~anta" constructions.

Maybe you (as English is not my language) could shed some light on this.

----
Now it gets even better:

King James:Marcus 9:4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.

The progressive is translated by Zamenhof into Esperanto using the infix -ad-:

LLZ:Marcus 9:4 Kaj aperis al ili Elija kun Moseo, kaj ili interparoladis kun Jesuo.

nornen:I cannot quite follow your train of thought. How can we conclude from the fact that there is a perfect, the fact that there also will be a progressive. Various languages (among them e.g. Latin and (ancient) Greek) do have a perfect, but do not have a progressive.

Calling them 'perfect' and 'progressive' confuses the issue a bit. What I meant was that if "Mi estis farinta tion," is a valid construction is Esperanto, "Mi estis faranta tion," must also be valid because the past and present participles work exactly the same way in their other Esperanto uses. Obviously using the past tense with a past participle adds a lot more meaning than using the past tense with a present participle, which is why using the simple tenses is generally preferred over the more complicated "verb + present participle" construction.

nornen:I kept on searching Zamenhof's work, and now comes a real puzzler:
In his translation of the old Testament, you find quite a lot of "est~ ~anta" contructions, however they do not translate into English progressive forms:

LLZ:Genesis 19:29 Kaj kiam Dio estis pereiganta la urbojn de la ĉirkaŭaĵo, Li rememoris pri Abraham, kaj Li elirigis Loton el la mezo de la ruinigado, kiam Li estis ruiniganta la urbojn, en kiuj loĝis Lot.

One might expect these forms to be past progressive, but in English we find:

King James:Genesis 19:29 And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.

I really don't understand what is happening here, and I don't quite see a relation between the English progressive and Esperanto "est~ ~anta" constructions. Maybe you (as English is not my language) could shed some light on this.

The phrases that use the estis ~anta construction both begin with "kiam." Using this construction indicates that these things happened while something else was happening. God remembered Abraham while he destroyed the cities, and he sent Lot out while he overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt. I remember from my years of high school. To be honest, I think this is more understandable than the English translation, which leaves some ambiguity there.

nornen:Now it gets even better:

King James:Marcus 9:4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.

The progressive is translated by Zamenhof into Esperanto using the infix -ad-:

LLZ:Marcus 9:4 Kaj aperis al ili Elija kun Moseo, kaj ili interparoladis kun Jesuo.

Your example from Mark is another example of how the English progressive is used more liberally that its Esperanto counterpart. In this instance, it's show a continual action of some duration. Esperanto's ~anta form isn't as versatile, and the infix -ad- serves this purpose better.

nornen:I kept on searching Zamenhof's work, and now comes a real puzzler:
In his translation of the old Testament, you find quite a lot of "est~ ~anta" contructions, however they do not translate into English progressive forms:

LLZ:Genesis 19:29 Kaj kiam Dio estis pereiganta la urbojn de la ĉirkaŭaĵo, Li rememoris pri Abraham, kaj Li elirigis Loton el la mezo de la ruinigado, kiam Li estis ruiniganta la urbojn, en kiuj loĝis Lot.

One might expect these forms to be past progressive, but in English we find:

King James:Genesis 19:29 And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.

I suggest to be very careful with these comparisons. In the Italian translation available to me, translation is as follows:

CEI:Così, quando Dio distrusse le città della valle, Dio si ricordò di Abramo e fece sfuggire Lot alla catastrofe, mentre distruggeva le città nelle quali Lot aveva abitato.

So, "estis pereiganta" matches a true past tense in Italian ("distrusse" = destroyed), but "estis ruiniganta" matches an imperfect ("distruggeva" = was destroying). Of course, there is a change also in other words ("quando" = when, "mentre" = while).

Basically, I feel that these translations are not strictly literal, so comparisons based only on them may be misleading.

raffadalbo:

CEI:Così, quando Dio distrusse le città della valle, Dio si ricordò di Abramo e fece sfuggire Lot alla catastrofe, mentre distruggeva le città nelle quali Lot aveva abitato.

So, "estis pereiganta" matches a true past tense in Italian ("distrusse" = destroyed), but "estis ruiniganta" matches an imperfect ("distruggeva" = was destroying). Of course, there is a change also in other words ("quando" = when, "mentre" = while).

This is more or less congruent with the PAG (Plena Analiza Gramatiko), which doesn't contrast "plain" and "progressive", but "perfect" and "imperfect". According to the PAG "esti ~anta" is an imperfect, not a progressive.

I think you are right that the usage of "distrusse" and "distruggeva" depends on the usage of "quando" and "mentre". In Spanish it would also be "cuando destruyó" and "mientras destruía".

My suspicion is that there simply is no progressive aspect/aktionsart at all in Esperanto. One might be able to distinguish a perfect and an imperfect, but no progressive.

Certain languages oblige to you to take into account certain distinctions.

In respect of countable things, English obliges you to observe the distinction in the noun between plural and singular.

(But unlike in Esperanto, this distinction is not expressed in the adjective - Esperanto: du belaj knabinoj, English: two pretty girls.)

In English you are obliged to take account in the verb of the distinction between viewing the action as a whole and viewing it as ongoing (eg do you smoke or are you smoking).

In Esperanto this obligation does not exist.

However you may additionally express the progessive view, by way of 'precizigo' by using a complex verb form. More commonly the simple verb form is used and the interpretation relies on context or sentence structure, or knowledge of the world.

So, does Esperanto have a progressive/continuous verb form - Yes

Is it used in the same way as English uses its progressive verb forms - No.

nornen:This is more or less congruent with the PAG (Plena Analiza Gramatiko), which doesn't contrast "plain" and "progressive", but "perfect" and "imperfect". According to the PAG "esti ~anta" is an imperfect, not a progressive.

I think the names you use for these types of compound tenses depends a lot on what your native language is. Some languages don't have an imperfect tense (unless I'm wrong, English doesn't), some languages don't have progressive tenses, etc. An Esperantist can use the verb + participle construction to express both, depending on what is necessary for the passage in question. As long as your translation/writing makes sense in Esperanto, you're good.

sudanglo:
So, does Esperanto have a progressive/continuous verb form - Yes

Is it used in the same way as English uses its progressive verb forms - No.

Thank you, you said what I was trying to say earlier much more succinctly.

It is much clearer now.

Thank you for the answers, everyone.

Also from me a big thank you to all.

Another question: Does this make any sense? (It does to me, but I am not sure if it is easily understandable)

Ni ĵus estis ludontaj piedpilkon, kiam ekneĝis.

(What I am trying to express is something like "we were about to play".)

nornen:Also from me a big thank you to all.

Another question: Does this make any sense? (It does to me, but I am not sure if it is easily understandable)

Ni ĵus estis ludontaj piedpilkon, kiam ekneĝis.

(What I am trying to express is something like "we were about to play".)

This makes sense to me!