Gerund and preterite...

[hola]

am i right when i say that you can not use the gerund with the preterite?

[Elaina]

I would say no.........but I leave this question to my more "grammar oriented" comrades.......

Even so, I would still say NO!

[poli]

I think it's safe to not use gerunds in Spanish at all. Find another way.
In Spanish the use of the infinitive replaces the gerund.

[Rusty]

The definition of a gerund is a noun derived from a verb. These nouns have an -ing ending, like speaking and eating, but are used as nouns. In the sentences that follow, the gerunds are also the subjects:
Speaking is not one of my favorite things to do.
Eating is something I enjoy.

El hablar = hablando
El comer = comiendo
Here we have two translations of the English gerunds I used in the first paragraph. Both words on either side of the equals sign have the same meaning. The one on the right is a gerund. They can be used as nouns, just like their English counterpart.

Don't confuse the gerund with the present participle, hablando and comiendo.
The present participle has the same spelling and meaning, but is not a noun. It is the second piece of a continuous tense verb (estar + present participle).

You can use the preterite form of estar with a present participle. You can use all the forms of estar with a present participle.

[Tomisimo]

This has already been explained by previous posters, but I often find multiple explanations helpful, so I'll continue. In English the gerund and present participle look the same:

Writing is something you do with pencil and paper. (gerund)
I was writing with a pencil. (present participle)

In Spanish the gerund and present participle don't look the same, they are different.

El escribir es algo que haces con lápiz y papel. (gerund)
Yo estuve escribiendo con un lápiz. (present participle)

So you can't use the gerund with the preterit, but you can use the present participle.

[Rusty]

I may have misled when I described the gerund. The English gerund is a noun derived from a verb and has an -ing ending. The Spanish gerund ends in -ando or -endo, but isn't used as a noun. Using the infinitive as a noun, as David and I pointed out, is the Spanish equivalent of the English gerund.

The following should have been in my post to make it more clear:
El hablar = speaking
El comer = eating

Here we have the translations of the English gerunds I used in the first paragraph. Both words on either side of the equals sign have the same meaning.

Don't confuse the gerund with the present participle, hablando and comiendo. The present participle is the second piece of a continuous tense verb (estar + present participle).

Sorry about the confusion I may have caused.

[Jessica]

*shakes head no* ;)

[Tomisimo]

I may have misled when I described the gerund. The English gerund is a noun derived from a verb and has an -ing ending. The Spanish gerund ends in -ando or -endo, but isn't used as a noun. Using the infinitive as a noun, as David and I pointed out, is the Spanish equivalent of the English gerund.
Unless I'm mistaken, and I might be, in English when the -ing form of a verb is used as a noun it's referred to as a gerund, and when it's a verb form (the present progressive) then it's referred to as a present participle. So the -ing, -iendo -ando forms of verbs are present participles, unless, and only in English, they are used as nouns, then they're gerunds. But then again, I may be off my rocker.

[Rusty]

I took my definition of the English gerund from more than three sources. All said that it is a noun that is derived from a verb. My previous thoughts agreed with yours - that a present participle acting like a noun is referred to as a gerund. But the sources I looked at call a gerund a noun that is derived from a verb, so I used their definition. Either way, a present participle and a gerund look identical. They merely serve different functions in a sentence.

[Tomisimo]

Yeah, sometimes I think trying to over-analyze grammatical terms can be counterproductive and actually keep people from learning rather than helping :) But we do use lots of gerunds in English, there are at least three in the previous sentence alone!

[hola]

what i meant was something like this:

estuve comiendo <<< if i am not mistaken, this is incorrect
estuve hablando <<< this is another example of using the gerund w/ the preterite and if i am not mistaken, it is incorrect

in those 2 examples you have the complete (estuve) w/ the ongoing action (comiendo), (hablando)

so im concluding that you can not use the gerund w/ the preterite (complete)

in those 2 examples estaba would have to be used because we have ongoing (comiendo, hablando) actions

[hola]

i might add that if you are going to use the complete or preterite w/ the gerund, you must add a time period in order for the sentence to hold up structurally. in other words, you must add additional information to convey the fact that the action has been completed if you are set on using the gerund. otherwise the incomplete or imperfect which would be estaba must be used w/ the gerund.

estuve comiendo. <<< wrong
estuve comiendo para quince minutos. <<< correct

estuve hablando. <<< wrong
estuve hablando para mucho tiempo. <<< correct

[Rusty]

There is nothing wrong with using the preterite progressive (estuve comiendo, for example). It means that someone was eating, was interrupted by something else, and did not return to eating after the interruption. Since the eating stopped (because of an interruption), the preterite is used to indicate completion of an action that was in progress.

The two sentences you listed with a time period are not correct. An ongoing (continuous) action in the past, that isn't interrupted by something else and that may, or may not still be happening always takes the imperfect tense.

Estaba comiendo por quince minutos. (This is just describing a continous action in the past - there is no hint of an interruption that caused eating to stop.)
Estaba comiendo por muchos minutos. (This is a continuous action for an indefinite amount of time. It may still be occurring.)

[CrOtALiTo]

I don't agree with anybody, because the sentence for itself structure is well done, for example if you mean to say, I was eating. or I was eat. the words or sentences is alone without any complement exact, simply you was eating, it's not necessary put them a complement, here some examples in my own translate.

Estaba comiendo. this noun sole is well done, it's not needs any complement.

Estube comiendo. it like need not any complement for to be understanding.

But if you mean to say more exact the sentence or to be more exact in your commentary , you will need to fulfill the sentence for example, I was eating 15 minutes ago.

Estaba comiendo hace 15 minutos.

[Rusty]

You agree with me, Crotalito. I didn't say the constructs had to be accompanied by anything to make sense. We don't have this ability in English, so I had to add parenthetical explanations.

[hola]

oh ok i thought they would be correct Rusty because it is saying that the action of eating has been completed, hence, estuve comiendo para quince minutos.

i assumed that you can not say estaba comiendo *without* saying for how long because estaba is the incomplete

the moment i say estuve comiendo, i am signifying that the action is complete so it would need a time period (ayer or quice minutos), again, because of the word estuve

the moment i say estaba i am signifying that the action is not complete so i have to put a time period IF i am going to continue to use the word comiendo OTHERWISE the alternative would be to simply say comia

i thought it was structurally wrong to use the gerund w/ the preterite

i'm thinking you can say estuve comiendo para quince minutos (time period included because im using the gerund) or comia para quince minutos but you can't say estaba comiendo and that's it. you would have to add something to the end of that for it to be structurally correct. example: estaba comiendo algo OR estaba comiendo tu comida OR estaba comiendo cuando me llamaste

[Rusty]

Not to beat a dead horse, but those verb structures can stand alone in a sentence and they have the meanings I explained. There isn't a way to differentiate them in English without additional words. In Spanish, however, they are wholly self-explanatory.

Estaba comiendo means I was eating when something interrupted me and then I returned to eating. It also means I was eating when something else occurred. The latter 'has set the stage' for something else. This form can also refer to something habitually done. Of course, most people would add the 'something else,' the 'interruption' or the 'when the habitual action occurred,' but the meaning is encoded in the verb structure, not in the additional words.

Estuve comiendo means I was eating, was interrupted, and didn't return to eating. The process of eating (hence the progressive form) had an end. No other explanation is needed, but most of the time there will be additional words.

[Elaina]

I agree wholeheartedly!