Konnte or könnte

The German language completely lacks grammatical aspects of verbs. " Ich war " doesn't say anything about continuation, progression, repetition or anything else other than the fact that it was a matter of the past. As an example at the absolutely opposite of the spectrum, there is modern Greek, where you have a continuous aspect to every tense except present indicative.

However, I was a bit unclear as to German subjunctive forms. In German grammar, " ich könnte " would be called Konjunktiv II der Gegenwart (present subjunctive II), whereas " ich könne " is Konjunktiv I der Gegenwart (present subjunctive I). Neither of them has anything to do with the past.

" Ich konnte den Zug gerade noch erreichen " doesn't imply anything even remotely like "something you used to be able to do in the past." I reached the station. The train was ready to leave. I was able to catch it, and off we went. Period.

As mentioned above, I wasn't quite clearly making the distinction between subjunctive I & II. That may have caused some confusion.

Even in colloquial German you can hear the preterite very often, albeit significantly less so in southern German, and it is on the decline. Moreover, of course, it's totally absent in Swiss German, which lead to the sad fact that even journalists in Switzerland often are unable to properly use the preterite. These days you can read nonsense like, " Vor dem Unglücksflug ist das Flugzeug in Vancouver zwischengelandet ," which would imply that it actually still is there and never reached reached the crash site.

I think you have misunderstood me.. regarding "what i said above is right", i was referring to könnte being the imperfect subj. not the present subj. as CG said. Its also known as subj 2.

Heres the list just to clarify more:

Present:

Ich kann.. I can

Present subj.

Ich könne.. I could (indirectly)

Imperfect:

Ich konnte.. I could (continuous past)/I was able

Imperfect subj.

Ich könnte.. I could (an assumption)/i would be able

To translate the verb können to "to be able" rather than "can" makes the translation more apparent perhaps.

Hi CG, One issue.. if you wanted to make a statement about the past, wouldn't you then use the perfect tense? And your phrase for catching the train wouldn't be "I was just able to catch the train", but rather "I caught the train". To which this translates using the perfect tense? You weren't able to just catch it, you caught it. Period. Being able or the fact you could excludes any "period" and makes your expression imperfect...

Looks like we need some clarification here.

In German grammar, pretty much as in English, the term "perfect tense" is a bit misleading in that its original function is to express an action that took place before the present but still somehow lingers around, so to say; see my example with the airplane. In other words, it's not "perfect" in the original sense of the word. I assume that this confusing use of the word "perfect" was caused by the fact that such grammatical terms (perfect, imperfect etc.) originally were mainly used in Latin grammar, where they made perfect sense (pun intended).

As stated in other posts, the German "perfect tense" has been gradually taking over the function of the imperfect tense, which, in German, isn't really "imperfect" but just a preterite ( Präteritum ). That's the main reason why I would never use the perfect tense for something that entirely happened in the past. So, my answer to your first question is "No," although I'm fully aware that I'm belonging to a decreasing minority. " Der erste Weltkrieg hat nach dem Attentat von Sarajewo begonnen " kind of implies that WW I is still raging.

I used the example " Ich konnte den Zug gerade noch erreichen " ("I was just able to catch the train") to demonstrate that the imperfect (!) " konnte " per se doesn't imply any repetitive or other grammatical aspect, because there is no such thing in German grammar. " Konnte " means it happened in the past, no matter if that was many times, over a long period of time, only once or whatever. In my example, there was only one train I had to catch, time was tight but I made it. No repetition, continuation etc..

I'm not quite sure what your second question means, but "I have been able to catch the train" would translate as "Ich habe den Zug gerade noch erreichen können," which (see above) kind of implies that I'm still on that train, both in English and in German but not necessarily in somewhat low-level colloquial southern German.

I'm not quite sure about the meaning of your last sentence. Could it be that you misconstrued the meaning of the word "period"? I used it in the (mainly American) sense of what Britons would call a "full stop," as in "a punctuation mark that ends a sentence." In other words, it means something like "Case closed," making clear that there was not even a hint of the repetition you had mentioned.

I was taught that the perfect past tense is appropriately named. It was explained to me so..It is perfect, in that it is named because it is complete/done and over, therefore perfect. It doesn't linger.. that would be the Imperfect tense, which is imperfect because it is not complete.. Therefore they are named appropriately, no confusion.

In german, when speaking formally and reading written text/storytelling or hearing official text eg. the news, we mostly hear the imperfect. Therefore your example of describing history doesn't sound right because being a formal event/history it should be said in the imperfect tense. I don't know the sense behind this however.. other than to guess that maybe it is shorter and more to the point for news and storytelling, rather than waiting until the end of a sentence to hear the action

To me that sentence does describe the continuous, "i could/was able to just catch the train" as opposed to the non-continuous of "I have just caught the train". German imperfect and perfect tenses translate directly to english. Eg: Imperfect: continuous: Ich kam "I came", to Perfect: finished/non-continuous: Ich bin gekommen "I have come".

"He moved to NYC." It may just as well be he isn't living there any more. Now what's "imperfect" here? At least the English grammar is honest enough to call it "past tense," but in many German grammar books this is called " Imperfekt ," which doesn't make any sense to me. That's why it's better to call it "Präteritum," (Latin for something gone by for good).

"He has moved to another country." He obviously is still abroad. "Perfect"? Why?

It's pretty much the same in German, except said Oberdeutscher Präteritumschwund (Upper German decline of the preterite):

" Er zog nach Mainz. " Meanwhile he may be living in Singapore, though. " Imperfekt "? Really?

" Er ist ins Ausland gezogen. " And he hasn't come back. " Perfekt "? Come on.

Sorry, I can't see anything continuous in the sentence "I could/was able to just catch the train." That was one single, brief action. Am I missing something?

"I came," meaning there have been many other things meanwhile, and most likely I'm not there any more. "I have come," and I still am here.

I'm sorry, i don't know how to explain it any better..

Just once more: "he moved to NYC" (Imperfect) as opposed to "he has moved to NYC" (perfect). He has done it, its done, finished.

["He has moved to another country." He obviously is still abroad. "Perfect"? Why?] Because he has done it and the action is complete.

"Er zog nach Mainz": He moved to Mainz. Imperfect, yes!

As opposed to "Er hat ins Ausland gezogen" (its used with haben, unless you want to say Er ist ins Ausland umgezogen). He has moved (and is) abroad.

But of course, in our everyday english speech, like in our everyday german speech the two are very often mixed up and not used correctly..

It is only a brief action when it is stated that you 'have done it' and completed it. (in the perfect tense). Not that you did it basically (which means a continuous action). Which is the difference between the perfect and the imperfect.

In english: I am finished (perfect) and I finished (imperfect).

We seem to live in two different worlds. " Er hat ins Ausland gezogen " is a sentence that is downright impossible in German. You can say, " Er ist ins Ausland gezogen / umgezogen ," but never ever with " haben " when " ziehen " means something like (intransitive) moving, wandering, drifting, migrating etc..

Yeah, "He has moved (and is) abroad." I agree, but aren't you contradicting yourself? He still is abroad, which means it is not "perfect." The word comes from Latin " perfectus ," which means done, completed, finished, while " imperfectus " means not finished yet.

I'm a native German speaker, and I do a lot of serious writing. I think it's time to give up. Good night.

You were the one who first used ziehen with sein when you said

I see that "Er hat ins Ausland gezogen" doesn't work either, thats why i corrected it in brackets in my other post..

But if you were to use the perfect tense of ziehen (meaning in english "to pull", it would be with haben..but yes as you say it doesn't make sense in that sentence)

No i'm not.. We are not discussing his state of living abroad or whether he stays or goes. We are using the verb "to move". We are describing what he "has done" with his action of moving and it is done. Therefore he has done it and it is complete and it is "perfect". To me i see it in English, "he moved abroad" (we have no time frame so it is imperfect) and "he has moved abroad" (has done means finished).

Ok i guess if we still disagree, we will leave it there. See you around!