0
Laborious Posted 12 years ago
Grammar

Tenses: They don't talk to each other vs They aren't talking to each other

Hello dear members of the Forum, 

Would someone please explain me the difference between "They don't talk to each other after the last argument" and "They aren't talking to each other after the last argument"? 

I don't think there is any difference between them, since both of them express the same thing, i.e, the action of not talking to each other after the last argument. Would you say those sentences in different contexts? 

Thank you all. 
  

Top answer

Suggestion: They haven't spoken to each other since the last argument.

— Philip

  • Suggestion: They haven't spoken to each other since the last argument.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

12 Answers
0
Suggestion: They haven't spoken to each other since the last argument.
0
0
'They don't talk to each' other is past tense. It is referring to an argument that has happened a long time ago.

'They aren't talking to each other' implies they are together and the argument was more recent.
0
0
PhilipSuggestion: They haven't spoken to each other since the last argument.
Thanks to you, dear Philip, for your quick reply! I know that's the idea expressed by those sentences. They haven't spoken to each other since that argument, but I'd like to know how you native speakers would contrast one with the other. One of my friends asked me the difference betwe
0
0
They are both different tenses. The first one is past tense but I am unsure of the other sense. Some kind of perfect tense.
0
0
Anonymous'They don't talk to each' other is past tense. It is referring to an argument that has happened a long time ago.
It's present simple tense. We have no idea how long ago the argument took place.
Anonymous'They aren't talking to each other' implies they are together and the argument was more recent.
It implies
0
0
LaboriousOne thing that I'm sure of is that there must be some difference between them, since if there weren't any difference, there would be no need to use two different sentences to express exactly the same thing.
The progressive form may suggest that the speaker regards the situation as more temporary than that suggested by the non-progressive form.
0
0
They don't talk to each other. - This reflects a current state of the relationship. A time specification does not sound natural. Present tense with the helping verb "do."

They aren't talking to each other.
This emphasizes an ongoing situation, which might change. Present continuous tense.
0
0
Fivejedjon and Alphecca Stars, thanks to both of you for your helpful replies.
fivejedjonThe progressive form may suggest that the speaker regards the situation as more temporary than that suggested by the non-progressive form.
Many grammar sites state that the present continuous (not simple present) is also used for something which continues o
0
0
The use of the progressive form emphasis the limited duration of the activity mentioned. The present simple does not have this suggestion. As the limited time is specifically mentioned in those three sentences, the present simple would not be natural.
0
0
fivejedjonAs the limited time is specifically mentioned in those three sentences, the present simple would not be natural.
Thank you. Could you give me a couple of examples using the "present continuous tense" in which the limited time is not sepcifically mentioned, but is understood, please?
0

Related Questions