sentence in present perfect and present simple

[fatzo]

the difference in meaning between these two sentnences I never smoke cigarettes and I have never smoked cigarettes.

[rewboss]

The present simple is a statement of fact:

I never smoke cigarettes. This was true in the past, it is true in the present, and we expect it to be true in the future.

The present simple is used to connect the past with the present. In this case, it is used to indicate a period of time that began with your birth, and continues to the present.

I have never smoked cigarettes. This means I never smoked cigarettes in the past. However, whether this will be true in the future is not certain.

To illustrate this, imagine it's part of a conversation. First conversation:

A: Would you like a cigarette?
B: No, thank you. I never smoke cigarettes. It's bad for my health.

Second conversation:

A: Would you like a cigarette?
B: Well, I've never smoked a cigarette before. So this will be my first.

[fiona bramble]

[quote=rewboss;231860]The present simple is a statement of fact:

I never smoke cigarettes. This was true in the past, it is true in the present, and we expect it to be true in the future. rewboss, I beg to differ my friend...The use of the simple present does not indicate a past or future relationship! It is only an indicator of present habit. This particular example may even be suggesting that the speaker doesn't smoke cigarettes,but perhaps something else!!

The present simple is used to connect the past with the present. In this case, it is used to indicate a period of time that began with your birth, and continues to the present. as above

I have never smoked cigarettes. This means I never smoked cigarettes in the past. However, whether this will be true in the future is not certain.

Fiona

[rewboss]

The present simple is used for a general fact which is generally, or always, true. The fact that I might smoke cigars or pipes or even joints is not relevant, because the fact we are stating is that I never smoke cigarettes.

This differs from the present progressive, which is used to describe things which are happening at the moment, but are most likely temporary.

Compare:

The earth goes around the sun. This is true now, it was also true in the distant past, and we expect it to be true into the future. It is a general fact.

Michael Schumacher is going around the track again. This is true at the moment of speaking, but the action only started recently and we expect the action to stop in the near future.

I never smoke cigarettes. This statement is one of a general fact. As a rule, I do not smoke cigarettes. And I do not intend to break this rule now or in the foreseeable future.

I am not smoking cigarettes. This is a temporary situation. It is not normally true, but I recently lost a bet and so for the next few weeks I must refrain from smoking cigarettes.

Saying that the present simple indicates a "present habit" is just a more complicated way of saying it states a general fact.

Of course, general facts can change; but then we need extra indicators in our sentences to explain this:

I never used to smoke, but now I smoke regularly.

Remove these extra indicators, and the sentence is reduced to nonsense:

I never smoked, but I smoke regularly.

The sentence is nonsense because the second clause directly contradicts the first. Without the extra markers to indicate a change of circumstances, we expect the second clause to mean not only that I now smoke regularly, but that I smoked regularly in the past (at least since I was old enough to).

[fiona bramble]

The present simple is used for a general fact which is generally, or always, true. It is a general fact but it is one that is presently true and bears no relation to the past or futureThe fact that I might smoke cigars or pipes or even joints is not relevant, because the fact we are stating is that I never smoke cigarettes. Just adding some spice and possible context

This differs from the present progressive, which is used to describe things which are happening at the moment, but are most likely temporary. We're not discussing the present progressive and I am familiar with the difference

Compare:

The earth goes around the sun. This is true now, it was also true in the distant past, and we expect it to be true into the future. It is a general fact.

Michael Schumacher is going around the track again. This is true at the moment of speaking, but the action only started recently and we expect the action to stop in the near future.

I never smoke cigarettes. This statement is one of a general fact. As a rule, I do not smoke cigarettes. And I do not intend to break this rule now or in the foreseeable future.
I disagree that this is a relevant comparison and and that there is a future aspect

I am not smoking cigarettes. This is a temporary situation. It is not normally true, but I recently lost a bet and so for the next few weeks I must refrain from smoking cigarettes.

Saying that the present simple indicates a "present habit" is just a more complicated way of saying it states a general fact. Sure, whatever language you prefer, but it is still not a reference to the past or future.

Of course, general facts can change; but then we need extra indicators in our sentences to explain this:

I never used to smoke, but now I smoke regularly.

Remove these extra indicators, and the sentence is reduced to nonsense:

I never smoked, but I smoke regularly.

The sentence is nonsense because the second clause directly contradicts the first. Without the extra markers to indicate a change of circumstances, we expect the second clause to mean not only that I now smoke regularly, but that I smoked regularly in the past (at least since I was old enough to).

I'm not sure how this touches on the main thread or my comments, but great to hear from you

Fiona