How long were these vegetables cooked for? (state of being cooked (ready)/process of getting cooked)

[Marika33]

If somebody asks, "How long were these vegetables cooked for?", does she/he ask about the state of being cooked or the process of getting cooked?
If the latter, why doesn't she/he use the past continuous, "How long were these vegetables being cooked for?"?

 

[Tarheel]

How long did you cook them?

Did you cook them long enough?

How long did you fry them?

How long did you boil them?

How long did you bake them?

How long were they In the oven?

How long were they in the microwave?

 

[jutfrank]

The speaker is asking about the cooking time. It isn't necessary to use being.

 

[Marika33]

The speaker is asking about the cooking time. It isn't necessary to use being.

Thank you!

How long were these vegetables cooked for? (She/He cooked them in the past)

Can I ask the same (using the simple, not the continuous tense) if the person is still cooking?

How long have these vegetables been cooked for? (She/He is still cooking them)

 

[Tarheel]

How long were they cooked?

How long have they been cooking?

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, you can.

 

[jutfrank]

How long were they cooked?

That's not right if the vegetables are still cooking at the time of speaking.

 

[Marika33]

That's not right if the vegetables are still cooking at the time of speaking.

Thanks! I understand it.

How long have they been cooking?

I thought this is the active voice. Who/What are these vegetables cooking?

Do I understand it correctly that both of these are possible if the vegetables are still being cooked?
1. How long have these vegetables been cooked (for)? (without "being")
2. How long have they been cooking (for)?

 

[jutfrank]

I thought this is the active voice. Who/What are these vegetables cooking?

Yes, it's active voice. The verb 'cook' is a special kind of verb (an 'ambitransitive' verb), which means that it can be seen in two ways:

a) The vegetables are cooking.
b) The vegetables are being cooked.

Both sentences above have more or less the same meaning, despite the difference in transitivity. The only semantic difference is that in b) we know that there's an agent (a person) who is performing the action. In a) this is only implied.

Do I understand it correctly that both of these are possible if the vegetables are still being cooked?
1. How long have these vegetables been cooked (for)? (without "being")
2. How long have they been cooking (for)?

Yes, both are 'possible', but it won't help you much to know that. The difference is the aspect, which is the way that the speaker views the action in relation to the time frame in which it happens. This is what I believe you need to understand better, and what you should be asking us about.

You can't use 'being' in sentence 1.

 

[Tarheel]

It is always my hope that the OP is paying close enough attention so that he/she can understand what I am saying. (Sometimes I am disappointed.) I guess that applies to others also.

 

[jutfrank]

It is always my hope that the OP is paying close enough attention so that he/she can understand what I am saying. (Sometimes I am disappointed.) I guess that applies to others also.

Sorry, what did I misunderstand?

 

[Tarheel]

@jutfrank "How long have they cooked?" is supposed to be past tense (obviously).

The two sentences in that brief post are in response to two different things.

 

[emsr2d2]

The two sentences in that brief post are in response to two different things.

Quoting the relevant "two different things" would have been very useful in your response then.

 

[Marika33]

Do I understand it correctly that both of these are possible if the vegetables are still being cooked?
1. How long have these vegetables been cooked (for)? (without "being")
2. How long have they been cooking (for)?

Yes, both are 'possible', but it won't help you much to know that. The difference is the aspect, which is the way that the speaker views the action in relation to the time frame in which it happens. This is what I believe you need to understand better, and what you should be asking us about.

Why do you think it won't help me? I simply wanted to know how to translate this idea from my native language. That's it. I got what I wanted: it should be either "How long have these vegetables been cooked?" or "How long have they been cooking?" with no difference in meaning.

 

[emsr2d2]

it should be either "How long have these vegetables been cooked?" or "How long have they been cooking?" with no difference in meaning.

That's not right. The first would be asked after the cooking is finished. The second would be asked while they're still being cooked.

 

[Marika33]

That's not right. The first would be asked after the cooking is finished. The second would be asked while they're still being cooked.

Hmm, it looks like different people have different views on this. Look at what jutfrank said in #9:

Do I understand it correctly that both of these are possible if the vegetables are still being cooked?
1. How long have these vegetables been cooked (for)? (without "being")
2. How long have they been cooking (for)?

Yes, both are possible, but it won't help you much to know that. The difference is the aspect, which is the way that the speaker views the action in relation to the time frame in which it happens. This is what I believe you need to understand better, and what you should be asking us about.

 

[Tarheel]

I don't think there is a disagreement. (I could be wrong.)

 

[jutfrank]

The apparent disagreement is that emsr2d2 has said that the sentence How long have these vegetables been cooked? would be asked if the cooking is finished.

I hope that she will agree with me that it is likely to be true but not necessarily true that the cooking is finished. If she does, I'll agree and that will resolve what seems to be the contradiction.

One of the very hard things for learners to learn about aspect is where a particular sentence implies a particular meaning and when it literally means it. There's a very importance difference there.

 

[EngLearner]

1. How long have they been cooked?
2. How long were they cooked?

If the above two sentences can be said when the cooking is over, under what circumstances is it appropriate to use #1 rather than #2 and vice versa?

 

[jutfrank]

1. How long have they been cooked?
2. How long were they cooked?

If the above two sentences can be said when the cooking is over, under what circumstances is it appropriate to use #1 rather than #2 and vice versa?

Good. This is the right question to ask, and you've asked it well.

You'd use #1 when you're talking about the vegetables' present state of cookedness.
You'd use #2 when you're talking about the cooking of the vegetables as a process that happened in the past.

We use the present perfect to make present relevance to a past state/action/process. When you use the present perfect, you're always saying something about the present.

If the vegetables are still cooking, it's likely that the speaker will use a present tense. It's not that the present perfect version means that the vegetables are still in the pan, it's just that the speaker has good reason to talk about their present state.