# I took my dog for a walk



## IlyaTretyakov

Can we say, "I took my dog for a walk" if we're still walking with her/him?

Situation: It'd been a long and tiring day at work today, I was really glad I finally got home and could take my dog for a walk. (I took her for a walk twenty minutes ago, and am still walking with it: been doing so for the last twenty minutes)


----------



## The Newt

IlyaTretyakov said:


> Can we say, "I took my dog for a walk" if we're still walking with her/him?
> 
> Situation: It'd been a long and tiring day at work today, I was really glad I finally got home and could take my dog for a walk. (I took her for a walk twenty minutes ago, and am still walking with it: been doing so for the last twenty minutes)


No. "Took" indicates that the walk is over.


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

The Newt said:


> No. "Took" indicates that the walk is over.


But, I've heard some people say so, even when they were still walking with their dog.


----------



## The Newt

IlyaTretyakov said:


> But, I've heard some people say so, even when they were still walking with their dog.


If you say so. It makes no sense to me.


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

The Newt said:


> If you say so.


Yes, I'm honest. I've heard that from native English speakers. That's why I asked this question here.

Does "I've taken my dog for a walk" make more sense to you?


----------



## The Newt

IlyaTretyakov said:


> Yes, I'm honest. I've heard that from native English speakers. That's why I asked this question here.
> 
> Does "I've taken my dog for a walk" make more sense for you?


"I've been taking my dog for a walk."


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

The Newt said:


> "I've been taking my dog for a walk."


But twenty minutes ago, my dog and I left our house to go for a walk. What did I do twenty minutes ago? - I took my dog for a walk, and now I am walking with my lovely dog. 

(Please, note, I'm not saying "I walked with my dog" which would imply the whole walking action. I'm saying "I took" which, I suppose, implies the starting point of our walking.)


----------



## The Newt

IlyaTretyakov said:


> But twenty minutes ago, my dog and I left our house to go for a walk. What did I do twenty minutes ago? - I took my dog for a walk, and now I am walking with my lovely dog.
> 
> (Please, note, I'm not saying "I walked with my dog" which would imply the whole walking action. I'm saying "I took" which, I suppose, implies the starting point of our walking.)


"I've taken my dog for a walk" doesn't tell us whether you're still walking your dog. In general we'd assume that this was a task that you have now completed.


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

The Newt said:


> "I've taken my dog for a walk" doesn't tell us whether you're still walking your dog.


I mean: I'm walking with my dog and meet a friend of mine in the park. He asks me, "Hi, how are you doing?", I say, "It'd been a long and tiring day at work today, I was really glad I finally got home and could take my dog for a walk (I took her for a walk ten minutes ago = I've taken it for a walk and you can see I'm walking with her now)"


----------



## cidertree

IlyaTretyakov said:


> I've heard that from native English speakers.


It must have been in a very specific context. Could you explain the circumstances?


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

cidertree said:


> It must have been in a very specific context. Could you explain the circumstances?


Roughly the same as I described above #9. But it was I who asked, "Hi, how are you doing?".



The Newt said:


> "I've taken my dog for a walk" doesn't tell us whether you're still walking your dog.


Why do you think, I've taken" doesn't tell us that (whether I'm still walking), but "I took" does, after all I was told context makes everything?

A: I*'ve *already *fed* the dogs.
B: When did you *feed *it?
A: Half an hour ago.

A: I*'ve taken* my dog for a walk. (You can see it, I'm walking with her now)
B: When did you *take *it?
A: Five minutes ago. (I took her for a walk five minutes ago)



kentix said:


> A: Have you seen Tom? I need to talk to him about this project.
> B: He's not here. *He's gone* to a meeting with his new client.
> 
> That's fine. It indicates he is either there *or on the way there*.


A: He*'s gone* to Moscow. (He's probabaly on his way there, because it's been only 10 minutes, but it's a long way)
B: When did he *go *to Moscow?
A: Ten minutes ago.


----------



## heatherinbr

IlyaTretyakov said:


> Can we say, "I took my dog for a walk" if we're still walking with her/him?
> 
> Situation: It'd been a long and tiring day at work today, I was really glad I finally got home and could take my dog for a walk. (I took her for a walk twenty minutes ago, and am still walking with it: been doing so for the last twenty minutes)


This is an interesting question. I have heard friends say, “I took my dog for a walk” when I ask what they are currently doing. I believe the proper answer is “I am walking my dog”. This is one of those phrases that is commonly spoken as a dog owner. “Took my dog for a walk” is just something they say often and they aren’t thinking about the proper way to answer what they are currently doing. Instead it should be, “I am walking my dog”.


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

The Newt said:


> No. "Took" indicates that the walk is over.


I have reasons to doubt it, sorry, because I was once told on this forum that _"I *had to do it*"_ necessarily means that that person did it. But, later I found out that's not true. Since I found in literature and in movies, many situations where it wasn't necessarily true. And, of course, the reported speech.

John: I have to go. (It doesn't mean that he will go, it only means that he has to)
Me: John said that he had to go. _(He *had to do it*)_


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

heatherinbr said:


> This is an interesting question. I have heard friends say, “I took my dog for a walk” when I ask what they are currently doing.


I agree. I've heard such answers too. And it does make sense.

Let's think logically: The Newt says:


The Newt said:


> "I've taken my dog for a walk" *doesn't tell us* *whether *you're still walking your dog.


When we want to know when the action described in the perfect tense happened, we use the past simple: 1)
A: I*'ve* *taken *my dog for a walk. (I'm still walking my god)
B: When did you do it? (When did you *take *it for a walk?)
A: Ten minutes ago. (I *took *her for a walk ten minutes ago)

2)
A: I*'ve *already *fed* the dogs.
B: When did you *feed *it?
A: Half an hour ago.

3)


kentix said:


> A: Have you seen Tom? I need to talk to him about this project.
> B: He's not here. *He's gone* to a meeting with his new client.
> 
> That's fine. It indicates he is either there *or on the way there*.


A: He*'s gone* to Moscow. (He's probabaly on his way there, because it's been only 10 minutes, but it's a long way)
B: When did he *go *to Moscow?
A: Ten minutes ago.


----------



## heypresto

IlyaTretyakov said:


> Why do you think, I've taken" doesn't tell us that (whether I'm still walking), but "I took" does, after all I was told context makes everything?


Because it's ambiguous. You might be still walking the dog or you might have walked the dog sometime in the past. Without any context, it is far more likely that you are talking about a past event, and that you are no longer walking the dog.

'I took the dog for a walk', however tells us that you are no longer walking it and the event happened sometime in the past. 

_A: What *have *you done today?
B: I'*ve* taken the dog for a walk, made some lunch, had a nap, and made a cake.

A: What *did* you do today?
A: I *took *the dog for a walk, made some lunch, had a nap, and made a cake._


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

heypresto said:


> 'I took the dog for a walk', however tells us that you are no longer walking it and the event happened sometime in the past.


Ok, please, follow the logic:

The Newt says:


The Newt said:


> "I've taken my dog for a walk" *doesn't tell us whether you're still walking your dog. *


When we want to know when the action *described in the perfect tense* happened, we use the past simple: 1)
A: I*'ve *already *fed* the dogs.
B: When did you *feed *it?
A: Half an hour ago.

2)
A: I*'ve* *taken *my dog for a walk. (I'm still walking my god)
B: When did you do it? (When did you *take *it for a walk?)
A: Ten minutes ago. (I *took *her for a walk ten minutes ago)



kentix said:


> A: Have you seen Tom? I need to talk to him about this project.
> B: He's not here. *He's gone* to a meeting with his new client.
> 
> That's fine. It indicates he is either there or on the way there.


3)
A: He*'s gone* to Moscow. (He's probabaly on his way there, because it's been only 10 minutes, but it's a long way)
B: When did he *go *to Moscow?
A: Ten minutes ago.



IlyaTretyakov said:


> I have reasons to doubt it, sorry, because I was once told on this forum that _"I *had to do it*"_ necessarily means that that person did it. But, later I found out that's not true. Since I found in literature and in movies, many situations where it wasn't necessarily true. And, of course, the reported speech.
> 
> John: I have to go. (It doesn't mean that he will go, it only means that he has to)
> Me: John said that he had to go. _(He *had to do it*)_


----------



## heypresto

IlyaTretyakov said:


> Ok, please, follow the logic:



Let's forget logic, and contriving unlikely scenarios, and let's talk about the Real World, and what we might actually say in it. I'm sure this is the better way to learn useful English. 



A: I*'ve* *taken *my dog for a walk. (I'm still walking my god)     I'm taking my dog for a walk. 

B: When did you do it? (When did you *take *it for a walk?)   When did you leave home?  When did you set out?  How long have you been walking? 

A: Ten minutes ago. (I *took *her for a walk ten minutes ago) (I left home/set off 10 minutes ago) 


A: I took my dog for a walk. (sometime in the past) 
B: When? (when did you take your dog for a walk?) 
A: Half an hour ago/this morning/ yesterday.


----------



## Edinburgher

IlyaTretyakov said:


> A: I*'ve *already *fed* the dogs.
> B: When did you *feed *it?
> A: Half an hour ago.


 This is fine.  Feeding the dogs means preparing their food and giving it to them.  The preparation probably doesn't take very long, and the giving it to them ends the activity.  "Feeding the dogs" doesn't include the time the dogs take to eat it. But they'll probably wolf it down in 30 seconds flat.  Unlike cats, they don't have any table manners.


IlyaTretyakov said:


> A: I*'ve* *taken *my dog for a walk. (I'm still walking my god)
> B: When did you do it? (When did you *take *it for a walk?)
> A: Ten minutes ago. (I *took *her for a walk ten minutes ago)


 This does not mean what you think it means, or what you want it to mean. "Walking the dog" and "taking the dog for a walk" mean the same thing. They both refer to the same activity, which begins when you leave the house and ends when you return to the house. Taking the dog for a walk does not mean just removing the dog from the house and starting the walk.  If you want that meaning, you need a different form of words.

So you might say "I am walking my dog" or "I am taking my dog for a walk", and then add "We set off  (or we left the house) 20 minutes ago".


IlyaTretyakov said:


> A: He*'s gone* to Moscow. (He's probabaly on his way there, because it's been only 10 minutes, but it's a long way)
> B: When did he *go *to Moscow?
> A: Ten minutes ago.


 B's question would work as "When did he leave?" or "When did he go?", but it would have to be without "to Moscow".


----------



## PaulQ

IlyaTretyakov said:


> Can we say, "I took my dog for a walk" if we're still walking with her/him?
> 
> Situation: It'd been a long and tiring day at work today, I was really glad I finally got home and could take my dog for a walk. (I took her for a walk twenty minutes ago, and am still walking with it:


The problem is that it is unclear in what practical circumstances you would want to use this. Here is an example:

A: "Ilya! What are you doing here?"
I: "It was a long day at work, so when I got home I took Rosa for a walk, and here I am..."


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

1)


heypresto said:


> A: I*'ve* *taken *my dog for a walk. (I'm still walking my god)     I'm taking my dog for a walk.





The Newt said:


> "I've taken my dog for a walk" doesn't tell us whether you're still walking your dog.


The two above contradicts each other. I agree with the second one, it's logical.


2)


heypresto said:


> Let's forget logic, and contriving unlikely scenarios, and let's talk about the Real World, and what we might actually say in it. I'm sure this is the better way to learn useful English.


OK, let's do this:


heatherinbr said:


> This is an interesting question. I have heard friends say, “I took my dog for a walk” when I ask what they are currently doing.


I've heard the same from my American friends, as well.


3)


PaulQ said:


> The problem is that it is unclear in what practical circumstances you would want to use this. Here is an example:
> 
> A: "Ilya! What are you doing here?"
> I: "It was a long day at work, so when I got home I took Rosa for a walk, and here I am..."


Completely agree.
I've always been asking about grammar and the meaning of verbs, not about "special context" which can be always easily created.


4)
A: Jack *has gone* to Moscow. (He's probabaly on his way there, because it's been only 10 minutes, but it's a long way)
B: When did he *go *to Moscow? (Jack may have gone there yesterday, or ten minutes ago, B doesn't know that)
A: Ten minutes ago.


Edinburgher said:


> B's question would work as "When did he leave?" or "When did he go?", but it would have to be without "to Moscow".


Sorry, Edinburgher, but B doesn't know whether Jack is on his way or has already reached Moscow.
So I see no reason for him not to say: "When did he go there*/*to Moscow?"
This is a reply that I got from a great English teacher from UK, who has released many grammar books and has created many English courses:


----------



## jucami

I can imagine the following phone call:

A: Where are you?
B: I'm still at the park. I took the dog for a walk. I'll be home in twenty minutes.
*-or-*
B: I'm still at the park. I'm walking the dog. I'll be home in twenty minutes.

From context here it's obvious that B is still in the process of taking the dog for a walk. Is this the type of context you've heard, Ilya? 

I would also like to ask for clarification about what you're asking. People have offered several different opinions, which is normal - different people can have different intuitions about what things mean. But you already seem to have decided on an answer:


IlyaTretyakov said:


> But, I've heard some people say so, even when they were still walking with their dog.





IlyaTretyakov said:


> I've heard the same from my American friends, as well.


If you already have a clear intuition about this construction, what exactly is it you want to know?


----------



## heypresto

IlyaTretyakov said:


> OK, let's do this:
> I've heard the same from friends native spearkers, as well.


Please re-read the _whole_ of post #12 rather than just quoting part of it which appears to support your assertion.



IlyaTretyakov said:


> A: Jack *has gone* to Moscow. (He's probabaly on his way there, because it's been only 10 minutes, but it's a long way)
> B: When did he *go *to Moscow? (It may have gone there yesterday, or ten minutes ago, B doesn't know that)
> A: Ten minutes ago.


B is very unlikely to say this. There's no reason to repeat 'to Moscow'. It sounds like an exercise in a textbook for learners.

_A: Jack's gone to Moscow.
B: When did he go/leave/set off?
C: Ten minutes ago/this morning/last night._


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

jucami said:


> I can imagine the following phone call:
> 
> A: Where are you?
> B: I'm still at the park. I took the dog for a walk. I'll be home in twenty minutes.
> *-or-*
> B: I'm still at the park. I'm walking the dog. I'll be home in twenty minutes.


So can I. That's about the context I've been talking about for a long time. Thank you, Jucami. 



jucami said:


> I would also like to ask for clarification about what you're asking. People have offered several different opinions, which is normal - different people can have different intuitions about what things mean. But you already seem to have decided on an answer:
> 
> If you already have a clear intuition about this construction, what exactly is it you want to know?


I've heard this several times from several of my friends. So I decided to ask the question here to see if members of this forum would say it's wrong or it's right in their opinion in order to find out if native speakers can look at their language completely differently. And how, after living an entire lifetime, a native English speaker can not know that other natives can really say.




heypresto said:


> Please re-read the _whole_ of post #12 rather than just quoting part of it which appears to support your assertion.


How can re-reading deny the fact that native speakers actually say that?



heypresto said:


> B is very unlikely to say this. There's no reason to repeat 'to Moscow'. It sounds like an exercise in a textbook for learners.


B doesn't know whether Jack is on his way or has already reached Moscow.
So I see no reason for him not to say: "When did he go there(to Moscow)?"


----------



## heypresto

IlyaTretyakov said:


> So can I. That's about the context I've been talking about for a long time. Thank you, Jucami.


If you'd have given this context at the start, we could have ended this thread in 2 or 3 posts. 



IlyaTretyakov said:


> How can re-reading deny the fact that native speakers actually say that?


It won't, of course, but it will point out that heatherinbr believes _(as do I)_ "the proper answer, when she asks what they are currently doing, is “I am walking my dog”, and that the speakers " aren’t thinking about the proper way to answer what they are currently doing" and she goes on to repeat "Instead it should be, “I am walking my dog”."



IlyaTretyakov said:


> B doesn't know whether Jack is on his way or has already reached Moscow.


That's right. But that doesn't make the repetition of 'to Moscow' natural. 'There' is fine, but 'to Moscow', as I said, sounds like something from an exercise in a textbook for learners, and not like something anyone would actually say. We frequently see similar things from learners, and we always advise them against simply echoing the question in the answer. It's not what we usually do.


----------



## Language Hound

IlyaTretyakov said:


> But twenty minutes ago, my dog and I left our house to go for a walk. *What did I do twenty minutes ago? - I took my dog for a walk,* and now I am walking with my lovely dog.
> 
> (Please, note, I'm not saying "I walked with my dog" which would imply the whole walking action. *I'm saying "I took" which, I suppose, implies the starting point of our walking.  )*


No, you did not "take your dog for a walk" twenty minutes ago.
You started walking your dog twenty minutes ago, and you are still walking your dog.
You got home, got your dog, and headed out for a walk.
You've been walking your dog for twenty minutes.


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

1)


heypresto said:


> If you'd have given this context at the start, we could have ended this thread in 2 or 3 posts.


Actually I provided some context at the top of this thread #1, #9.


IlyaTretyakov said:


> I mean: I'm walking with my dog and meet a friend of mine in the park. He asks me, "Hi, how are you doing?", I say, "It'd been a long and tiring day at work today, I was really glad I finally got home and could take my dog for a walk (I took her for a walk ten minutes ago = I've taken it for a walk and you can see I'm walking with her now)"


Maybe mine isn't the best one, but it's almost the same as Jucami's.


jucami said:


> A: Where are you?
> B: I'm still at the park. I took the dog for a walk. I'll be home in twenty minutes.




2)


heypresto said:


> It won't, of course, but it will point out that heatherinbr believes _(as do I)_ "the proper answer, when she asks what they are currently doing, is “I am walking my dog”, and that the speakers " aren’t thinking about the proper way to answer what they are currently doing" and she goes on to repeat "Instead it should be, “I am walking my dog”."


Sorry, but I really don't think that "I took my dog for a walk" is worse then "I'm walking my dog", I do believe both are perfectly correct.
I don't consider 'I took my dog for a walk' as a whole action *from *leaving home *through *walking for a while with your dog *to *coming home. Instead, I consider 'I took my dog for a walk' as a starting point of the whole leaving home/walking with your dog/coming home, just like here: "It looked as if it was going to rain, so we *took *an umbrella ('took' here doesn't cover the entire time of us having that umbrella with us)." _In the same way_ I think "I took my dog for a walk" is correct.


3)


heypresto said:


> That's right. But that doesn't make the repetition of 'to Moscow' natural. 'There' is fine, but 'to Moscow', as I said, sounds like something from an exercise in a textbook for learners, and not like something anyone would actually say.


Honestly, it doesn't really scare me that it's not too natural. If 'there' is fine, then we can ask "Where's there?" and the answer is "to Moscow" so, logically, we can say "He went to Moscow" even if he hasn't reached it yet.
A: Jack *has gone* to Moscow. (He's probabaly on his way there, because it's only been 10 minutes, but it's a long way)
B: When did he *go there*? (It may have gone there yesterday, or ten minutes ago, B doesn't know that)
A: Ten minutes ago. (= He went *there *ten minutes ago (Where's there?). *=* He went *to Moscow* ten minutes ago.)


4)


Language Hound said:


> No, you did not "take your dog for a walk" twenty minutes ago.


Sorry, but yes, this is exactly what I did. Have a look:
#12


heatherinbr said:


> This is an interesting question. I have heard friends say, “I took my dog for a walk” when I ask what they are currently doing.


#19


PaulQ said:


> The problem is that it is unclear in what practical circumstances you would want to use this. Here is an example:
> 
> A: "Ilya! What are you doing here?"
> I: "It was a long day at work, so when I got home I took Rosa for a walk, and here I am..."


#21


jucami said:


> I can imagine the following phone call:
> 
> A: Where are you?
> B: I'm still at the park. I took the dog for a walk. I'll be home in twenty minutes.
> *-or-*
> B: I'm still at the park. I'm walking the dog. I'll be home in twenty minutes.


----------



## Language Hound

Language Hound said:


> No, you did not "take your dog for a walk" twenty minutes ago.





IlyaTretyakov said:


> 4)
> 
> Sorry, but yes, this is exactly what I did.


No, you are laboring under two misconceptions, which I've indicated by an  in post #25.
As native speakers have pointed out to you, "I took my dog for a walk twenty minutes ago" means the walk is over.
If you want to use the past tense of a verb to refer to the starting point of your walk, you can say, as I suggested before, 
_I got home, got my dog, and *headed out for a walk*.
I've been walking my dog for twenty minutes._

I don't know why you are stubbornly insisting that you are right when native speakers are telling you you are not.
Why post here if you don't want to believe native speakers?
This thread should have ended with post #2.


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

Language Hound said:


> No, you are laboring under two misconceptions, which I've indicated by an  in post #25.
> As native speakers have pointed out to you, "I took my dog for a walk twenty minutes ago" means the walk is over.


I'm afraid you didn't read what is written in this thread, you can have a look:
#12


heatherinbr said:


> This is an interesting question. I have heard friends say, “*I took my dog for a walk*” when I ask what they are currently doing.


#19


PaulQ said:


> The problem is that it is unclear in what practical circumstances you would want to use this. Here is an example:
> 
> A: "Ilya! What are you doing here?"
> I: "It was a long day at work, so when I got home I *took Rosa for a walk*, and here I am..."


#21


jucami said:


> I can imagine the following phone call:
> 
> A: Where are you?
> B: I'm still at the park. I *took the dog for a walk*. I'll be home in twenty minutes.
> *-or-*
> B: I'm still at the park. I'm walking the dog. I'll be home in twenty minutes.


+ Heypresto who at first claimed it was wrong, changed his mind(#24) when he saw the "right" context provided by Jucami in #21.




Language Hound said:


> This thread should have ended with post #2.


If that had happened, the truth wouldn't have come out in #12, #19, #21.


----------



## heypresto

IlyaTretyakov said:


> Sorry, but I really don't think that "I took my dog for a walk" is worse then "I'm walking my dog", I do believe both are perfectly correct.


Sorry, I do think that "I took my dog for a walk" is worse then "I'm walking my dog" _in that context_. 



IlyaTretyakov said:


> I do believe both are perfectly correct.


I don't. And I don't think you should. 



IlyaTretyakov said:


> I don't consider 'I took my dog for a walk' as a whole action *from *leaving home *through *walking for a while with your dog *to *coming home.


I do. That is _precisely _what it means. 



Language Hound said:


> I don't know why you are stubbornly insisting that you are right when native speakers are telling you you are not.
> Why post here if you don't want to believe native speakers?
> This thread should have ended with post #2.


I wouldn't normally make a point of quoting another member's comment with which I agree, but I agree so strongly here that I've made an exception.


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

heypresto said:


> Sorry, I do think that "I took my dog for a walk" is worse then "I'm walking my dog" _in that context_.


I suggest that you read #12, #19, #21 carefully. The truth is more important than trying to prove one's viewpoint. 
I really don't understand why confuse people who are trying to figure out the logic of a language and teach them not real one, but what you would like it to be.



IlyaTretyakov said:


> This is a reply that I got from a great English teacher from UK, who has released many grammar books and has created many English courses:
> View attachment 75267


By analogy, we can say the same with 'to take one's dog for a walk" as here:


PaulQ said:


> A: "Ilya! What are you doing here?"
> I: "It was a long day at work, so when I got home I took Rosa for a walk, and here I am..."


or here:


jucami said:


> I can imagine the following phone call:
> 
> A: Where are you?
> B: I'm still at the park. I took the dog for a walk. I'll be home in twenty minutes.
> *-or-*
> B: I'm still at the park. I'm walking the dog. I'll be home in twenty minutes.


----------



## heypresto

IlyaTretyakov said:


> Honestly, it doesn't really scare me that it's not too natural.


Well, it _should_. Well, perhaps not _scare_ you, but it should alert you to what we naturally say, and I would have thought that you would want to learn good, natural English, and not 'correct', 'rule-bound' or 'possible-in-some-contexts' English that nobody speaks. There are zillions of sentences that are possible, correct, and make sense, but that we just wouldn't say. I'm sure that's the case in Russian too. 

It seems you are _still_ ignoring the rest of what heatherinbr said in post #12. 




IlyaTretyakov said:


> Heypresto who at first claimed it was wrong, changed his mind(#24) when he saw the "right" context provided by Jucami in #21.


I agreed to it being correct _in that context_, the context you should have given at the start. But I disagree with most of your other assertions.


----------



## heypresto

IlyaTretyakov said:


> teach them not real one


We are trying to teach the_ real_ one, the one _that we all use_. I don't see any point in teaching or agreeing with any English that might be possible but that we wouldn't use.


----------



## Welsh_Sion

I don't see any point in teaching or agreeing with any English that might be possible but that we wouldn't use.

________

It's called 'communication': I need to understand you. You need to understand me.

That is the basic interaction of (any) language - and we need to use forms that we (and others) mutually understand and use, otherwise we get nowhere.

This is as true for English as it is for any other, and encouraging the identifying of the appropriate context will help everyone in understanding what the other person/people are talking about.


----------



## Packard

The Newt said:


> "I've been taking my dog for a walk."


That works, but I’ve always said, “I’m walking my dog.”

I’ve always wished that there were two terms for walking a dog.  One for allowing the dog to relieve himself and the second for recreational walking.  

A lot of people do just the first option.  I had a run for the dog to relieve himself, so I only did recreational walking (the ”recreation“ was for the dog and the dog walker).


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

heypresto said:


> Well, it _should_. Well, perhaps not _scare_ you, but it should alert you to what we naturally say, and I would have thought that you would want to learn good, natural English, and not 'correct', 'rule-bound' or 'possible-in-some-contexts' English that nobody speaks.


How is that "nobody speaks"? We all hear that expressions all the time.



heypresto said:


> It seems you are _still_ ignoring the rest of what heatherinbr said in post #12.


No, I'm not, but I don't think it's a good idea not to see the forest for the trees.
The main point is that he has heard friends say that and* so have I*, as I've pointed out in #3.


heatherinbr said:


> This is an interesting question. I have heard friends say, “I took my dog for a walk” when I ask what they are currently doing.



I'd like to repeat myself:
The truth is more important than trying to prove one's viewpoint.
I really don't understand why confuse people_(by saying _'that's incorrect!!!'_)_ who are trying to figure out the logic of a language and teach them not real one, but what you would like it to be.


----------



## JulianStuart

IlyaTretyakov said:


> But, I've heard some people say so, even when they were still walking with their dog.


Then you should really go ask them, if you don't "like" the comments you get _here*_.  There are many situations where a subset of people will use an expression in a way that the majority wouldn't.  If the walk is still progressing, it simply doesn't make sense to say it is _completely_ (there's the theme word ) in the past. (The standard view of tense choices, your friends notwithstanding).  Most people will keep that whole completed effort as one action. _Some_ might use the word "take" to mean _only_ "remove the dog from its home" at the beginning of the whole effort of "take for a walk"   Such people might say "I took the dog and we are going for a walk".

*If members are disagreeing with some of your assertions (or friends), I don't think they are trying to "win an argument", they are just trying to help people learn English.


----------



## heypresto

IlyaTretyakov said:


> We all hear that expressions all the time.


Where? 


IlyaTretyakov said:


> The main point is that he has heard friends say that


The main point is that she thinks it's wrong. 



IlyaTretyakov said:


> and* so have I*, as I've pointed out in #3.


_Where _have you heard it? Well, it doesn't actually matter. The fact that you've heard it doesn't make it right - it's still wrong. As heatherinbr  points out. 



IlyaTretyakov said:


> and teach them not real one


Again, I am trying to get you to realise that I, and we, are trying to teach you the real language, and not the textbook or 'logical' language that might be 'correct' but nobody uses. What's the point of learning a language that we don't use ourselves?

I speak _natural _English, and I've been doing so for more than 60 years. I would ever say 'I took my dog for a walk' if I meant 'I've taken my dog for a walk.'  If I were to hear it with that meaning, I would consider it wrong.


----------



## IlyaTretyakov

JulianStuart said:


> Then you should really go ask them, if you don't "like" the comments you get _here*_.


That's exactly what I just did.
I just called my friend and told her the entire story of this argument, and this is about what she told me:
_"You just got them thinking and they discovered something wrong with it, believe me, they use or hear it all the time, they just don't notice it for themselves. If you get a person to pay attention to anything, they'll probably find something wrong with it."_



heypresto said:


> _Where _have you heard it? Well, it doesn't actually matter. The fact that you've heard it doesn't make it right - it's still wrong.


Sorry, why are you trying to ignore what, not only me, but other native speakers have written? Please, have a look at #19 and #21.
1)


PaulQ said:


> The problem is that it is unclear in what practical circumstances you would want to use this. Here is an example:
> 
> A: "Ilya! What are you doing here?"
> I: "It was a long day at work, so when I got home I *took Rosa for a walk*, and here I am..."


2)


jucami said:


> I can imagine the following phone call:
> 
> A: Where are you?
> B: I'm still at the park. I *took the dog for a walk*. I'll be home in twenty minutes.
> *-or-*
> B: I'm still at the park. I'm walking the dog. I'll be home in twenty minutes.


3) + Heypresto who at first claimed it was wrong, changed his mind(*#24*) when he saw the "right" context provided by Jucami in.

4) +


IlyaTretyakov said:


> This is a reply that I got from a great English teacher from UK, who has released many grammar books and has created many English courses:
> View attachment 75267


By analogy, we can say the same with 'to take one's dog for a walk".


----------



## JulianStuart

IlyaTretyakov said:


> That's exactly what I just did.
> I just called my friend and told her the entire story of this argument, and this is about what she told me:
> _"You just got them thinking and they discovered something wrong with it, *believe me, they use or hear it all the time*, they just don't notice it for themselves. If you get a person to pay attention to anything, they'll probably find something wrong with it."_


Rubbish. For some people this may be true, but for the majority of members here, who are clearly attuned to language issues more than the average person in the street, it's blatantly untrue.  That's why I suggested you ignore us and get your English from them.


----------



## SevenDays

IlyaTretyakov said:


> Can we say, "I took my dog for a walk" if we're still walking with her/him?
> 
> Situation: It'd been a long and tiring day at work today, I was really glad I finally got home and could take my dog for a walk. (I took her for a walk twenty minutes ago, and am still walking with it: been doing so for the last twenty minutes)


_take someone/something for a walk_ is a fixed expression/set phrase, and it means "to walk with a person or animal." In other words, the idea of an ongoing activity ("to walk") is inherent to this fixed expression. If you introduce _*tense*_ (_I *took* my dog for a walk_), then what we understand _by default_ is that the activity expressed by the fixed expression happened in the past. That's why it feels counterintuitive to use past tense marker ("took") to refer to something ("walk") that is still taking place "now," in the present.

The point is that the meaning of the fixed expression is taken in its totality. If you tell me that

_I'm glad that I took my dog for a walk_

means that "I'm still walking my dog," then what I conclude is that you've "cut" the fixed expression in "two;" the first part ("took") refers to something that happened _prior_ to the moment of speaking, while the second part ("walk") is _concurrent/ongoing_ with the moment of speaking.

This is not, in itself, "wrong" (speakers are always and ultimately in charge of what they mean), but it does make _communication_ rather complex, and perhaps more complex than it needs to be. Of course, in context, this may not be an issue. But even context (i.e. post #21) doesn't mean that everyone would use it t. The beauty of _fixed expressions_ is that they help us get the point across quickly. Cognitively, we don't stop to think if the fixed expression "take someone/something for a walk" has been _cut in two_ (sort of speak), because fixed expressions are taken as a whole.


----------



## JulianStuart

SevenDays said:


> _take someone/something for a walk_ is a fixed expression/set phrase, and it means "to walk with a person or animal." In other words, the idea of an ongoing activity ("to walk") is inherent to this fixed expression. If you introduce _*tense*_ (_I *took* my dog for a walk_), then what we understand _by default_ is that the activity expressed by the fixed expression happened in the past. That's why it feels counterintuitive to use past tense marker ("took") to refer to something ("walk") that is still taking place "now," in the present.
> 
> The point is that the meaning of the fixed expression is taken in its totality.


----------



## Roxxxannne

'Default' version of a fixed expression, phone call (see SevenDays, #40):
A: what did you do this afternoon?
B: I took the dog for a walk.
[I take this to mean that the person and the dog have completed the walk]

Non-default version, phone call: (with thanks to Jucami, #21)
C: Where are you?
D: I'm still at the park. I took the dog for a walk. I'll be home in twenty minutes.
[With this additional information in the first and third sentences, I interpret the fixed expression in the second sentence in a way other than the default: I take it to mean that the walk is still in progress.]


----------



## Cagey

We depend on our members to give thoughtful and useful answers about English as it is spoken, and they did in this thread. We don't ask that so those answers can be rejected on the grounds that they don't match withheld context -- or don't agree with the answer the poster had in mind. 

This thread is closed. 

Cagey, 
moderator


----------

