無料体験レッスンレッスン詳細
同僚とランチに行こう
作成したスクリプトは講師により添削されます。
Indeed, it's lunchtime. I'm starving because I didn't eat enough for breakfast. My youngest son ate my toast after he had his own toasts. Meanwhile, I just had a cup of soup.
Can we go out for lunch, or did you bring your lunch box?
Indeed, it's lunchtime. I'm starving because I didn't eat enough for breakfast. My youngest son ate my toast after he had his own toast. Meanwhile, I just had a cup of soup.
Should we go out for lunch, or did you bring your lunch box?
That sounds perfect! I also bring my lunch today. See? Let's go to the break room. Oh, why don't you use a microwave? I believe reheat food makes your lunch more delicious.
That sounds perfect! I also brought my lunch today. See? Let's go to the break room. Oh, why don't you use the microwave? I believe reheating food makes your lunch more delicious.
Since we're talking about an action that happened earlier today (bringing lunch), we need the past tense "brought" to maintain consistent tense with the context.
2. Missing article "the"
The definite article "the" is needed before "microwave" because we're referring to a specific microwave in the break room that both speakers know about.
3. "reheat" → "reheating"
When using a verb as the subject of a sentence, we need the gerund form (-ing). "Reheating" functions as a noun in this sentence.
Yes, I do. I always carry my lunch. I always prepare a little more when I make dinner and change the sauce to make different dishes and finish them as a lunch.
Yes, I do. I always bring my lunch. I always prepare a little more when I make dinner and create different dishes by changing the sauces, using them for lunch.
While "carry" is grammatically correct, it's not the most natural word choice in English when talking about taking lunch to work or school. "Bring" is the more common and natural expression for transporting food items for meals.
2. "and change the sauce to make different dishes and finish them as a lunch" → "and create different dishes by changing the sauces, using them for lunch"
The original phrase is unnatural. The corrections create a more logical flow and natural English expression by:
- Restructuring the sentence to show the process more clearly
- Using the more natural phrase "create different dishes"
- Using "by changing the sauces" to show the method
- Adding "using them for lunch" as a natural conclusion
- Removing the unnecessary article "a" before "lunch"
関連単語
- finally（ついに）
- nearby（近くの）
- tasty（おいしい）
- （Chinese） cuisine（（中国）料理 ）
- go for ~（～を選ぼう、～を目指そう）
- something worth trying（試す価値のあるもの）
- big portion（盛りつけが多い）
- scrumptious（すごくおいしい）
- Count on~ （〜を頼りにする）
- plateful（大盛りの）
- grab（ひっつかむ、大急ぎで取る）
関連フレーズ
- Do you think you'll be in the mood for something to eat afterwards?（この後、何か食べたい気分になると思いますか？）
- I'm really starving.（とてもお腹がすいています。）
- I recommend that you do a little research first before making a decision.（まずは少し調べてから判断されることをお勧めします。）
- Which one do you prefer? I like both.（どちらが好きですか？ 両方とも好きです。）
- Do you know a place where they serve Japanese food?（日本食を出してくれるところを知っていますか？）
- It always seems crowded.（いつも混んでいるようです。）
- I'd rather go outside.（どちらかと言えば、むしろ外出したいです。）
こんな方にオススメ
"Toast" is an uncountable noun in English when referring to the food item. We don't say "toasts" even when referring to multiple pieces of toast.
2. "Should we" is often preferred in conversational contexts like this because it implies a suggestion or consideration of options, which matches the tone of your question. On the other hand, "Can we" focuses more on permission or ability, which isn't the main point here since you're not asking if it's possible but rather suggesting an idea.
For example:
- "Should we go out for lunch?" conveys: "Is this a good idea? Do you think we should?"
- "Can we go out for lunch?" conveys: "Is it possible for us to go out for lunch?"