I read on one of the forums that a native speaker may use both the present simple and the progressive interchangeably in a sentence like "I am living in Dublin" instead of "I live in Dublin" even if the action isn't a temporary one. The progressive can also imply that the speaker was living somewhere else before. The native speaker wasn't talking about his hometown though. But if they were talking about their hometown would they still use the progressive in "I live in Dublin" even if the action isn't temporary and the speaker didn't live anywhere else before? Aren't we talking about a fact in this case?
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
"I lived" and "I was living" are very similar in meaning and many speaker will swap between them.
"I was living" means, at the time, you considered it temporary. "I lived" means, at the time you didn't consider it temporary.
Consider my situation: In 1995 I spent 6 months in Moldova. It knew that it would end after 6 months It was a "working holiday" experience.
I was living in Moldova.
Then from 2001 to 2008, I was in Japan. I had no particular plans to return, until about 2007.
I lived in Japan.
And Japan was my "home", but Moldova was a place I was visiting. There are grey areas and ambiguities. But if you want to imply "it's temporary" then use "be living" but if you don't then use "live".
"a native speaker may use both the present simple and the progressive interchangeably in a sentence like "I am living in Dublin" instead of "I live in Dublin" even if the action isn't a temporary one.'
It's not grammatically correct.
Native speakers, though, sometimes use ungrammatical structures. Not everyone is literate enough to be always grammatical. Particularly in speech.
