I was writing to a lady in Belgium in Esperanto. She speaks very little English. She wanted me to give her a few sentences in Esperanto and she would try to translate them into English. I wrote Kien vi iras - according to Jen Nia Mondo, it is translated Where are you going? I tried to keep it real simple. Maybe I should have written kien vi estas iranta because she translated it and tried to answer it by saying
I going to Germany. How do I explain to her that in Esperanto we don’t necessarily need the verb to be, but in English, we do. Especially since I really don’t understand it.

I'd recommend to explain it like this (some native speaker of English should check for any factual inaccuracies; this is more or less what I learned at school):

La anglaj verbformoj, kiuj finiĝas per -ing, estas uzataj simile al la Esperantaj formoj kun -anta. Vi do devas uzi la verbon "to be" (esti) konjugaciita laŭ la persono (am, is, are). Via frazo devas esti "I am going to Germany", kaj ne "I going to Germany", kiu estas same erara kiel la Esperanta "mi iranta al Germanujo".

La diferenco inter la simpla verbformo - "I go" - kaj la formo "am/is/are ...ing" (esti ...anta) - "I am going" estas, ke la unua montras ĝeneralan emon, dum la dua montras okazon de la ago en ĝuste la nuna momento (kvankam ĝi povas esti uzata ankaŭ por la estonteco). Do, por "ĉiutage mi iras al mia laborejo" vi uzu "every day I go to my workplace", dum por "mi iras (ĝuste nun!) al Germanujo", vi uzu "I'm going to Germany".

Translation to English for those whose Esperanto isn't good enough to understand this:

"The English verb forms ending in -ing are used similarly to the Esperanto forms with -anta. As a result, you have to use the verb "to be" (esti) conjugated according to the person (am, is, are). Your sentence is supposed to be "I am going to Germany", not "I going to Germany", which is just as erroneous as the Esperanto "mi iranta al Germanujo".

The difference between the simple verb form - "I go" - and the form "am/is/are ...ing" - is that the first one shows a general tendency, while the second one shows the action happening exactly currently (although it can also be used for the future). Thus, for "ĉiutage mi iras al mia laborejo" you use "every day I go to my workplace", while for "mi iras (ĝuste nun!) al Germanujo", you use "I'm going to Germany"."

Another explanation would be something along the lines of English preferring to use -ing with "to be" because it is slowly becoming more analytical like Chinese.

Another way to explain it is by comparing "-ing" and "to be" as "part of the verb conjugation", e.g. "to be _-ing" is the same as putting on -as/os/is.

ailebol:I was writing to a lady in Belgium in Esperanto. She speaks very little English. She wanted me to give her a few sentences in Esperanto and she would try to translate them into English. I wrote Kien vi iras - according to Jen Nia Mondo, it is translated Where are you going? I tried to keep it real simple. Maybe I should have written kien vi estas iranta because she translated it and tried to answer it by saying
I going to Germany. How do I explain to her that in Esperanto we don’t necessarily need the verb to be, but in English, we do. Especially since I really don’t understand it.

Better not try to explain, even don't try to understand! The whole thing is quite simple: Every language is a world apart and has to be learnt as such. If the lady wants to learn esperanto, she should try to communicate with you in esperanto. Everything else unnecessarily creates confusion.

ceigered:Another way to explain it is by comparing "-ing" and "to be" as "part of the verb conjugation", e.g. "to be _-ing" is the same as putting on -as/os/is.

Yes, that's basically my explanation a bit shortened.

darkweasel:

ceigered:Another way to explain it is by comparing "-ing" and "to be" as "part of the verb conjugation", e.g. "to be _-ing" is the same as putting on -as/os/is.

Yes, that's basically my explanation a bit shortened.

Haha! Mi bedauxregas! Ok rather than summarising your much better explanation, I'll add something - "to be _-ing" can also be used for things that aren't necessarily "now": for example, "I'm reading Macbeth (why you're reading Macbeth? Maybe self-punishment?)" could mean the person has been reading the book and hasn't finished (but "I have been reading" is definitely better for that function).

So, in a way, "I am ...." is very loose in it's temporal aspects, which is why it is preferred for talking about general actions. It's almost akin to having a temporally-neutral tense in EO.

(if the person knows Indonesian or Malay, you could tell them that the "to be _-ing" form acts similarly to a simple verb in either of those languages like "makan" (eat) e.g. Saya makan makanan (I eat food...))

Monta Rivero:Better not try to explain, even don't try to understand! The whole thing is quite simple: Every language is a world apart and has to be learnt as such. If the lady wants to learn esperanto, she should try to communicate with you in esperanto. Everything else unnecessarily creates confusion.

He means she wants to learn ENGLISH, she already knows Esperanto. He's trying to teach her English using Esperanto, so he's already communicating in Esperanto with her

To Ceigered:

Your are correct. My native language is English, her’s is Polish. We both are novices in Esperanto but we are able to communicate well. Her interest in learning English has helped our comprehension of Esperanto. I learn by making mistakes and finding out why.

Vivu Esperanto!

ceigered:

darkweasel:

ceigered:Another way to explain it is by comparing "-ing" and "to be" as "part of the verb conjugation", e.g. "to be _-ing" is the same as putting on -as/os/is.

Yes, that's basically my explanation a bit shortened.

Haha! Mi bedauxregas! Ok rather than summarising your much better explanation, I'll add something - "to be _-ing" can also be used for things that aren't necessarily "now": for example, "I'm reading Macbeth (why you're reading Macbeth? Maybe self-punishment?)" could mean the person has been reading the book and hasn't finished (but "I have been reading" is definitely better for that function).

So, in a way, "I am ...." is very loose in it's temporal aspects, which is why it is preferred for talking about general actions. It's almost akin to having a temporally-neutral tense in EO.

I think I'm reading Macbeth uses the present progressive form because it's also "something going on now", and you can use it even if you aren't actually currently reading, but have stopped some time ago and plan to continue reading. This seems to me logical enough. However, I'd use I read Macbeth every week because this shows a repetition, a general tendency.

Where the present progressive indeed doesn't show currentness is with expressions like Next year we're going to Italy, where it actually shows an action going on in the future. We have the same thing in German where present tense is used for the future. English speakers who learn German may get confused if a German speaker asks them: Gibst du mir einen Stift? ("Do you give/Are you giving me a pen?"), which is supposed to be a request for a pen.

darkweasel:However, I'd use I read Macbeth every week because this shows a repetition, a general tendency.

I must say though that in general conversation not many English speakers (at least here downunder) will specify that far and would just go "Oh yeah, I'm (or I've been) reading Macbeth... (It's) pretty boring ()"