ESL General English Grammar Questions

Re: taking out the windows of the car

Ant_222 — Sun, 11 May 2008 18:53:56 GMT

Vincent:

Refering back to a post by Goodman:

Â«On the contrary, taking out a window means destroying it.

The compound verb "take out" has different meanings.
- Colloquial: to take out someone or something means to remove the person or an object from exsistence by force or violence. So "taking out a window seems like a logical use but in reference to window, it's an overkill in meaning.
Cutting out the window/ breaking the window/ breaking in through the window etc... proabably will sound more natural.Â»

So I think it depends on what you mean:

1) Pull/Take out the windscreen,
2) or just what Goodman proposed

Which is the meaning that you need?

Re: taking out the windows of the car

Vincent Teo — Sun, 11 May 2008 15:36:36 GMT

So, what is the final answer? Can I say,

"taking out the windows of the car" ?

Re: taking out the windows of the car

Ant_222 — Sat, 10 May 2008 08:04:17 GMT

Goodman: Â«So I am restrained to comment further on the correctness of âwereâ vs âhave beenâ. But I will leave you this to ponder on...Â»

Thanks for the patience, Goodman. I will keep investigating.

Anton

Re: taking out the windows of the car

Goodman — Fri, 09 May 2008 22:51:45 GMT

I would say this. Based on the context, âthey were cookedâ and âthey have been cookedâ 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 âwereâ vs âhave beenâ. 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.

Re: taking out the windows of the car

Ant_222 — Fri, 09 May 2008 22:00:53 GMT

Hello, CJ, and many thanks for not forgetting poor me!

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

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

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

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

My question (which I hope will be the last :):
Are both sentences correct?

Re: taking out the windows of the car

Goodman — Fri, 09 May 2008 21:46:40 GMT

Hi Ant222,

My English skill is not in the âgrammarianâ 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 hasnât made any car payment for the past 6 months.

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

Re: taking out the windows of the car

Ant_222 — Fri, 09 May 2008 18:24:04 GMT

Hello Goodman.

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

Â«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) âNothing strange about itÂ»

"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" ;)

Re: taking out the windows of the car

Goodman — Fri, 09 May 2008 17:27:28 GMT

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)
âNothing strange about it

Case # 1 If this "box" is a beef chow pan âfried style, it would be absolutely correct. âItâ refers to the Chow mien and âan hour after it has been cookedâ in passive voice to describe itâs state.

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

But if we shift Chinese food to "takes outs", implying several items, then ^{âthey have been cookedâ} sounded perfectly ok to my ears.

Of course I could be wrong and I donât realize it. Thatâs when we need the native expertsâ expertise.

Re: taking out the windows of the car

Ant_222 — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:45:21 GMT

Hi Goodman, and thanks for the reply!

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

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

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

Thanks for the clarification.

Â«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...Â» 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...

Â«If you feel it needs improvement, How would you imporve it?Â»
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.

Re: taking out the windows of the car

Goodman — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:32:22 GMT

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?

Re: taking out the windows of the car

Goodman — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:22:48 GMT

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...

Re: taking out the windows of the car

Ant_222 — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:15:51 GMT

N2G: Forgot to mention soapy water â to make the rubber surround smooth, if you're interested...

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

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...

Re: taking out the windows of the car

New2grammar — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:05:52 GMT

Really? So native speakers don't say "take out Indian/Vietnamese"? I can sort of understand why they don't associate it with Italian or Japanese because you usually dine in for those crusines. I could be wrong and hope to get some information here. Thanks in advance!

Re: taking out the windows of the car

Ant_222 — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:02:42 GMT

No heat emitive devices for my car! The windscreen can be pulled out by two men without any instruments and put back with just a cord which is placed into the rubber tape's groove and then pulled out from the inside to shift the rubber surround into position.

EDIT: New2Grammar:

Â«the flange of the window openning
Why do you refer to the windshield glass as window ? Is it considered a window? I'd like to know.Â»

No, windscreen = glass, "window opening" belongs to the window (without the glass). Clearer now?

Re: taking out the windows of the car

Goodman — Fri, 09 May 2008 15:58:57 GMT

I don't know why but for some unexplained reasons, when people mention "takeout" Chinese is always associated with it.
I personally are not crazy about Chinese take-outs. Chinese food is fine when served in the restaurant when they are hot off the wok. But eating from a "box" an hour after they have cooked
is not very appetizing to my stomach, unless I was starving.