taking out the windows of the car
1 2 3 4
   Share on Facebook  
Ant_222  #511711  Fri, 09 May 08 05:15 PM
N2G: Forgot to mention soapy water — to make the rubber surround smooth, if you're interested...

Goodman: « But eating from a "box" an hour after they _have_ cooked is not very appetizing to my stomach, unless I was starving.»

Sorry for bothering, but... Is the Present Perfect a typo here? Asking 'cause if it is not, then my notion of this tense needs improvement...
  
Top 75 Contributor
Joined on Sun, May 21 2006
Podolsk, Russia
Senior Member (1,300)
,
Goodman  #511712  Fri, 09 May 08 05:22 PM
Of course there is Vietnamese Pho or shrimp roll take out. I like Vietmanese and Italian, especially Cioppino and Languini in white clam sauce. Yum!
Thinking about it is making my mouth water...(:)) Smile
  
Top 50 Contributor
Joined on Mon, Nov 7 2005
Calif. USA
Advanced Member (2,711)
The name says it all!
Goodman  #511714  Fri, 09 May 08 05:32 PM
Hi Ant222,
Sorry about the mental error. I have tried very hard not to have this kind of mental errors but sometimes when my head is trying to compose a sentence but my fingers don't work in sync so a word here and there is missed. This is one of those. Yes, your are correct. It 's a mistake.  It should be "Have been cooked.." (present prefect passive). If you feel it needs improvement, How would you imporve it?
  
Ant_222  #511717  Fri, 09 May 08 05:45 PM
Hi Goodman, and thanks for the reply!

Actually, I meant replacing it with the Past Simple: «But eating from a "box" an hour after they cooked (it — inserted by Ant) is not very appetizing to my stomach, unless I was starving»

«It should be "Have been cook.." (present prefect passive)»

"Having been coocked", I hope. (or am I not right?)

Thanks for the clarification.

«I have tried very hard not to have this kind of mental errors but sometimes when my head is trying to compose a sentence but my fingers don't work in sync...» I woudn't worry very much about it becuse otherwise your English is great (IMHO), and such errors take as little as a proof-read to find and fix...

«If you feel it needs improvement, How would you imporve it?»
I don't know, maybe pay more attention to the grammar when reading. I often get involved in a book so much that grammar aspects go sideways, so I can't use the structures that I have just read in my own speech.

EDIT: ...I am confused, I have no idea of what the correct version of the sentence is :(((

1. But eating from a "box" an hour after they cooked it is not very appetizing to my stomach, unless I was starving
2. But eating from a "box" an hour after it has been cooked is not very appetizing to my stomach, unless I was starving (strange to me)

EDIT2: All right, I just didn' realize that with "they" you refer to the food, not the cooks. Sorry.
  
,
Goodman  #511732  Fri, 09 May 08 06:27 PM
Ant_222
1. But eating from a "box" an hour after they cooked it is not very appetizing to my stomach, unless I was starving
2. But eating from a "box" an hour after it has been cooked is not very appetizing to my stomach, unless I was starving (strange to me)


Hi Ant222
1. But eating from a "box" an hour after they cooked it is not very appetizing to my stomach, unless I was starving .

- I presume the "they" you refered to is the chefs, am I right?
I guess this is a case of passive or active choice. I prefer to see the "Box" containing the food being cooked than "they cook it"

 

2. But eating from a "box" an hour after it has been cooked is not very appetizing to my stomach, unless I was starving (strange to me)
–Nothing strange about it

Case # 1  If this "box" is a beef chow pan –fried style, it would be absolutely correct. “It” refers to the Chow mien and “an hour after it has been cooked” in passive voice to describe it’s state.

Case # 2 If we refer to Chinese good as a collect noun, “it has been cooked”  it is fine.

But if we shift Chinese food to "takes outs", implying several items, then “they have been cooked” sounded perfectly ok to my ears.

 

Of course I could be wrong and I don’t realize it. That’s when we need the native experts’ expertise.
  
,
Ant_222  #511741  Fri, 09 May 08 07:24 PM
Hello Goodman.

«- I presume the "they" you refered to is the chefs, am I right?»
Right, and I wondered what _you_ referred to with the "they" in your sentence... Now I see it were the take-outs!

«2. But eating from a "box" an hour after it has been cooked is not very appetizing to my stomach, unless I was starving (strange to me) –Nothing strange about it»

"An hour after they have been cooked" sounded somewhat self-contradicting to me because I couldn't reconcile "one hour ago" and a present tense. Now I seem to have got it: the cooking is in a sence a timeless action for we can not say whether it is located in the past or in the future. Now that I have arrived at this, I can't understand why Past Simple (i.e. "after they were cooked") is also possible...

Hope, I am moving in the right direction and soon you'll "disperse this darkness of the mind" ;)
  
, , ,
Goodman  #511804  Fri, 09 May 08 10:46 PM

Hi Ant222,

My English skill is not in the “grammarian” class but I will give it my best attempt to explain it. It may not may not be agreeable with the experts.

 

In many instances during casual conversations, we can bet by with simple past tense and no one will flag you for errors. However, to be grammatically correct, the right tense should be followed and observed consistently.  Besides using present perfect to connect events from the past to present, sometimes, we will see past reference combined into a present perfect structure. i.e.

John seems to have forgotten who helped him 2 years ago when his lost his job. This is perfectly legal.

 

General simple present statement with timeless reference.

I have never seen movies as bad as this one!

I have tried many times to quit smoking but failed.

 

With time reference, past to present:

Jane has changed 3 jobs since the beginning of this year.

She hasn’t made any car payment for the past 6 months.

 

If you already understood the above, just disregard my post.

 

 
  
, , , , , ,
Ant_222  #511813  Fri, 09 May 08 11:00 PM
Hello, CJ, and many thanks for not forgetting poor me!

«If you already understood the above, just disregard my post.»

I have no problems with the simple examples you gave, but that sentence of yours still troubles me...

Your version:
«But eating from a "box" an hour after they _have been_ cooked is not very appetizing to my stomach, unless I was starving»

My modification:
«But eating from a "box" an hour after they _were_ cooked is not very appetizing to my stomach, unless I was starving»

My question (which I hope will be the last :):
Are both sentences correct?
  
Goodman  #511844  Fri, 09 May 08 11:51 PM

I would say this. Based on the context,  “they were cooked” and “they have been cooked” would be understood by most people. I have my own opinion which is correct to say but I am not completely confident that everyone agrees. So I am restrained to comment further on the correctness of “were” vs “have been”.   But I will leave you this to ponder on...

There are still no agreeable solutions 8 hours after the community crime problem discussion has begun.
  
1 2 3 4
AddThis Feed Button RSS Feed: taking out the windows of the car
© 2008 MediaCET Ltd.
Terms and Conditions