>>>>>
>>>>>But how about street talk? Are all people really using the "I'm smoking a cigarette" sentence and do they never say "I smoke a cigarette"? I'm not referring here to formal speech, but to street talk. How about...
>>>>>
>>>>>"I was smoking a cigarette."
>>>>>"I smoked a cigarette."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>We would use the first ( past tense progressive ) to indication what we were doing when something else happened. "I was smoking a cigarette when the teacher caught me."
>>>>
>>>>We use the second to indicate past completed action
>>>>
>>>>"What did you do outside?"
>>>>"I smoked a cigarette."
>>>>
>>>>If someone says "What were you doing ( while you were ) outside?"
>>>>
>>>>"I was smoking a cigarette ( while I was outside )" is correct as the duration is implied.
>>>
>>>Terry gave this example:
>>>
>>>A - "Come inside"
>>>
>>>B1 - "No, I'm smoking"
>>>B2 - "No, I smoke" Which indicates that someone is a smoker.
>>>
>>>I understand that rule. But if one can say "I smoked a cigarette", then one can also say "I smoke a cigarette", notwithstanding the proclaimed practice that most would say "I am smoking a cigarette". As it is obvious to everyone that this person is not a smoker of one single cigarette during his whole life. ( I know cigarettes kill you, but not that fast :)
>>
>>Not really. It's as Charles says. You'd say "I smoke" (ie generally this is what I do - I am a smoker) but not "I smoke a cigarette" unless it's like "... after every meal". Without the "ing" the verb expresses something you do/did/will do habitually/regularly/over a period of time.
>>
>>eg:
>>
>>A. "Go get clean the car"
>>B. "No, I'm eating"
>>
>>But if B said "No, I eat" (not really making sense in this context), A might say "I don't care what you usually do in order to gain sustenance, go wash the car"
>>
>>Prisoner. "I ate my lunch then hurried back to my cell before the big bald guy saw me"
>>or
>>"I was eating my lunch when the big bald guy saw me, came over and stole my bread roll"
>
>In Dutch we'd also say "Nee, ik ben aan het eten" rather than "Nee, ik eet". Eventually we would say "Nee, ik eet nu" which translates to "No, I eat now".
>
>That last one indicates that our language is more tolerant here. And that may explain why I found it difficult to understand that a sentence like "No, I eat now" sounds really weird to native speakers of English. I'll try to pay closer attention to this aspect.

I don't know about tolerance. I do know that at least Germans have a problem with the difference between forms. For instance, just this morning on the radio I was listening to a Himmler woman (grand niece of Heinrich) talking about her book on her infamous relative. Although her English was fast, accurate and confident, she got just about every verb tense wrong. eg:

"Of course I was knowing for years about my great uncle" (You either know something or not. You don't continue to know it for a while and then it goes)
You could say "I was driving when the rain stated", "I drove all night in the rain"

"yesterday I have received a phone call" (we use the perfect when it has just happened, eg "I've just received a call from a friend", "No thank you, I have eaten" - although Americans might wrongly say "No thank you, I just ate"

>
>Thanks Terry, Dragan and Charles. :)

You are being welcome! lol