I am corresponding in Esperanto with a lady in Poland. We are able to communicate well but she wants to practice some English. So I asked her to write a few sentences. She wrote “I going to Germany.” I know that this is easy to correct but I also know that in Esperanto: Mi iras means I go or I am going. The question is when, in English, is the verb “to be” necessary. Do we insert “am, was, will be, etc” because of the ing ending on the verb?

ailebol:I am corresponding in Esperanto with a lady in Poland. We are able to communicate well but she wants to practice some English. So I asked her to write a few sentences. She wrote “I going to Germany.” I know that this is easy to correct but I also know that in Esperanto: Mi iras means I go or I am going. The question is when, in English, is the verb “to be” necessary. Do we insert “am, was, will be, etc” because of the ing ending on the verb?

the "to be" part is necessary whenever it's meant to be a verb - for example:
If you want "eating" to be a verb, "to be" must come before it.
Otherwise, "eating" becomes either an adjective (the eating ant), or a noun/gerund (he hates the eating of marsupials).

The actual logic behind it is that you are saying that you are the thing doing the verb. For example, in Esperanto, we have a "manĝanta kato" (an eating cat, e.g., a cat which is eating). The -ing turns the verb into an adjective, just as -anta does in Esperanto. This adjective basically means whatever is described by it is doing the verb that it is derived from. So, you can't say "I eating", just as you could never say "I Australian" or "I 5 ft tall" .

Hopefully this helps you explain it

(as for WHY we do it, I'm not sure. For some reason, English and the celtic languages (the British sprachbund?) have a tendency to avoid directly associating a verb with a doer. E.g., while the tendency used to be "the doer does ....", it's evolved to become "the doer is a doer of ....". It's in English, Scottish Gaelic (derived from Irish, which is a LOT more conservative) and Welsh mostly. I think the ambiguous word-categorisation system (e.g. love is a verb and noun) has caused this evolution to make talk easier yet less ambiguous).

ceigered:...the "to be" part I think the ambiguous word-categorisation system (e.g. love is a verb and noun) has caused this evolution to make talk easier yet less ambiguous).

(Off topic slightly)
I am glad you tried to explain it. I don't think I could I sometimes find the more general verbs in other language are lacking nuances I am used to in English. That's not necessarily a bad thing either. "Mi iras" can take on so much work when in English we can change the meaning subtly with "I go" (as in I go everyday but not right at this moment); "I am going" (right now, you see me leaving!).

I was told Esperanto would make my thought processes less ambiguous and clearer and the more I learn the more that is true.

Ironchef:"Mi iras" can take on so much work when in English we can change the meaning subtly with "I go" (as in I go everyday but not right at this moment); "I am going" (right now, you see me leaving!).

That's certainly an interesting thing too - it's as if all normal present tense verbs have lost their associated meanings of being "present" etc, where as things like "to be" have kept a very rigid temporal meaning, so we combine the important temporal meanings hidden in "to be" with the meaning of other verbs to help explain ourselves.

I wonder though how "to have" + past participle is meant to make sense. Maybe the logic is that if you have done something, you own it or have mastered it in some sort of way. So by saying "I have .....ed/en", it's like saying "I own recognition that I've done such and such"... You can probably tell this interests me!

Past participles in most Western languages seem to fall into the categories of the ones conjugated with "have" verbs and the ones conjugated with "be" verbs.

The "have" ones are normally expressing an action that you took. The "be" ones are usually expressing a state of being (or as that particular language sees a certain action as being a state of being).

In a language like Italian it's pretty clear, you have "Ho mangiato" (I ate, "have" verb) but "Sono andato" (I went, "be" verb). Sometimes it's less clear, but you can still often figure out some kind of logical overtone of "being" versus "doing", for the verb choice. Occasionally there is also a meaning difference - akin to "I am finished" versus "I have finished".

Yiddish - Ikh bin gegangen / איך בין געגאַנגען (I went, "be" verb), versus Ikh hob gegest / איך האָב געגעסט (I ate, "have" verb)

English is weird in the sense that instead of having "have" verbs and "be" verbs, all verbs are kind of both, and indicate different verb forms. I have gone / I am gone.

erinja:Past participles in most Western languages seem to fall into the categories of the ones conjugated with "have" verbs and the ones conjugated with "be" verbs.

The "have" ones are normally expressing an action that you took. The "be" ones are usually expressing a state of being (or as that particular language sees a certain action as being a state of being).

In a language like Italian it's pretty clear, you have "Ho mangiato" (I ate, "have" verb) but "Sono andato" (I went, "be" verb). Sometimes it's less clear, but you can still often figure out some kind of logical overtone of "being" versus "doing", for the verb choice. Occasionally there is also a meaning difference - akin to "I am finished" versus "I have finished".

Yiddish - Ikh bin gegangen / איך בין געגאַנגען (I went, "be" verb), versus Ikh hob gegest / איך האָב געגעסט (I ate, "have" verb)

English is weird in the sense that instead of having "have" verbs and "be" verbs, all verbs are kind of both, and indicate different verb forms. I have gone / I am gone.

In standard German forms of "be" are used for past tense forms of verbs that express a movement: gehen (go), fahren (ride, go), fliegen (fly) and so on: Ich bin gegangen (I have gone), Ich bin gefahren (I have ridden), ich bin geflogen (I have flown) etc. Other verbs use a form of have in these verbal forms: Ich habe gegessen (I have easten), ich hatte getrunken (I had drunk). In Southern Germany, e.g. Bavaria, forms of "be" are used for verbs of sitting, standing and laying as well: Standard German: Ich habe gesessen (I have sat), Southern German: Ich bin gesessen. Besides "be" forms are used for state passive forms: Das Buch ist gelesen. The book has been read. But for a passive form that expresses a process a form of the verb "werden" is used. Das Buch wird gelesen. The book is read [now]. I think Italian is similar to German in this regard.

ailebol:I am corresponding in Esperanto with a lady in Poland. We are able to communicate well but she wants to practice some English. So I asked her to write a few sentences. She wrote “I going to Germany.” I know that this is easy to correct but I also know that in Esperanto: Mi iras means I go or I am going. The question is when, in English, is the verb “to be” necessary. Do we insert “am, was, will be, etc” because of the ing ending on the verb?

English is not my mother tongue but German, but I think she wanted to express: Mi iros resp. Mi veturos al Germanio. I learned that this is in English: I am going to Germany. In Polish it is probably: Pójdę do Niemiec resp. Pojadę do Niemiec.

English is not my mother tongue but German, but I think she wanted to express: Mi iros resp. Mi veturos al Germanio. I learned that this is in English: I am going to Germany. In Polish it is probably: Pójdę do Niemiec resp. Pojadę do Niemiec.

Using the present continuous (present progressive) to describe future plans is an annoying thing in English that seems to have very wide use and therefore is considered acceptable. 'I am going to go to Germany' or 'I will/shall go to Germany' are better. The former is a bit of a mouthful, with 'go' appearing twice, and that's probably the reason people shorten it by using only one 'go' - 'I am going to Germany.'

I can't say why 'shall' is not as commonly used anymore, it seems very accurate to me.

3rdblade:
I can't say why 'shall' is not as commonly used anymore, it seems very accurate to me.

We shall have to find a reason one day!

A possible explanation for why we've let "going to go" shorten so easily to just "go", is because when you "go" somewhere, it just means that you've got a target and you are planning by means to get there. That's not a very dictionary definition, and I'm sure many will insist that "go" technically means transit between on spot to another.

But if you look at the way humans travel, I could say "I'm going to university now", spend 5 minutes tying my shoelaces before even leaving my house, then leave my house to get to the bus, before forgetting that I left my lunch home and then returning home. That whole time, I was still "going to university", but I didn't really make any progress, so one could argue that my actual journey was being referred to in the future tense.

(I feel it should be noted that in Indonesian, the word "to" (ke) can be used by itself to mean "to go". So maybe it could be said that the notion of "going" in the human mind is merely having a target destination, and that unlike normal verbs, the mind simply processes a "completed" tense (past tense), and an "uncompleted" tense (present/future). At least until we get into habitual actions, which is a whole new minefield).

"Shall" may have shifted its meaning over time. Whereas previously it may have been simply "will" applied to the first person, the two may now be equivalent after 'I', except that 'shall' sounds more old-fashioned. But in addition, 'Shall' before I has come to mean 'should', so that 'Shall I?' means 'Should I?' Also, 'shall' after the second person is used to make a stronger statement 'You SHALL', though here 'will' can probably do the same job.