sudanglo:Does mi ĉiam amis vin imply that you have stopped loving her?

I certainly would have assumed that meant that you had stopped loving her.

I feel like present tense should be used here in some way, because of the action still applying in the present.

This PMEG page seems to okay the use of "de" and "por" in front of -AM correlatives in general. Though the PMEG example uses "tiam":

- De tiam mi restas senlabora

I'm inclined to lean to the "de ĉiam" solution, I think. But in our case, I think the present tense applies as in the PMEG example:

- Mi de ĉiam amas vin

The "estis" in opalo's Zamenhof example suggests a past malhelpo.

sudanglo:Does mi ĉiam amis vin imply that you have stopped loving her?

This I think would depend largely on the context. It's true that an IS-verb normally shows an action that has finished, but IMO we can say "mi ĉiam amis vin" without necessarily implying we no longer love the person being addressed. This would especially be the case if the emphasis is on the ĉiam; where one means to say there never was a time that I didn't love you.

sudanglo:What tense is appropriate in

1. I have always lived here.

'Always' is an adverb modifying 'lived', or to be more precise, counting the number of measureable points of 'lived-here-ness' that one 'has', and then generalising that number to an adverb. We say 'lived' not 'live' because these points occured in the past. What is the frequency of these points of 'lived-here-ness' in the above statement? 100%. If it weren't 100% we'd use a different adverb, eg. 'I have sometimes lived elsewhere.' Simple!

In contrast, 'I always live here' connotes that during these present days, the person does not sometimes have points where he lives in other places. In other words, the percentage of measurable points of 'live-elsewhere-ness' is 0%, while the percentage of 'lived-here-ness' is 100%. In other words 'always' is still measuring occurences of something.

'I have always been living here,' 'I have never been living anywhere else,' are also fine. The use of the continuous/progressive clarifies the continuous feeling of the act of 'living' (it's not a start-stop act like kicking a soccer ball), but by using 'always' and 'never' we are still measuring the frequency of occurences of those acts. (In contrast, 'I have always been loving you' is wrong, though could make a catchy K-pop number.)

To simplify it in Esperanto I'd use the present simple, which seems clear enough: "Mi ĉiam loĝas ĉi tie." A listener might ask for clarification, if thought necessary: "Ĉu vere? Vi neniam loĝis aliloke?"

Or forget ĉiam and say, "Mi loĝas ĉi tie denaske," "Mi neniam loĝis aliloke." Keep it clear as possible; as Ezra Pound said, "Fundamental accuracy of statement is the one sole morality of writing." Why be in any way unclear, unless you're in a court of law?

2. I have always been taller than my sister.

More mucking around with the past perfect! The percentage of points of 'me-being-taller-than-she-ness' in the past that I 'have' is 100%. Esperanto version: Neniam mia fratino estis pli alta ol mi.

Does mi ĉiam amis vin imply that you have stopped loving her?

It implies that she's dead and that he's standing at her grave. (i.e. "I always loved you (when you were alive.) So, technically the answer to your question is yes. More context would help clarify whether she's alive or dead. "Ĝis vi ŝiris mian koron per lerni Ido, mi ĉiam amis vin."

ReVo supports this, giving, "Li ĉiam diradis al mi la veron" as an example for ĉiam indicating 'la tuta pasinta tempo'. In other words, he is at present no longer in the habit of telling me the truth.

J_Marc:It implies that she's dead and that he's standing at her grave. (i.e. "I always loved you (when you were alive.)

Or perhaps she's on her deathbed, telling him she always loved him. In this case I very much doubt the response of the man would be "Sed kial vi ĉesis???"

I'm inclined to lean to the "de ĉiam" solution

Yes, Eldanar, and to some extent this sidesteps the issue of the choice of tense for 'I have always ...'

As far as I can judge playing around with Google Translate, the tendency of the Continental languages is to use a past form in this structure. On the other hand, Esperanto likes a present tense is the action/state is still true.

I agree that ĉiam X-is places the action firmly in the past, and of course ĉiam X-as could be a timeless generality, as well as something that continues to be true.

But once you use de ĉiam this forces the issue so that between de de ĉiam X-is and de ĉiam X-as there is only a small difference. Perhaps the former may sometimes imply that things are going to change. It may seem strange to use de ĉiam X-is in situations that cannot change. Could I say 'De ĉiam 2 + 2 egalis 4'?

By the way, Marc, I don't think English permits 'I have always been living here'. You rightly point out however that 'I have always been loving' you is bizarre, but this is because love does not usually accept a continuous form - despite the current McDonalds advertising.