The plane leaved at 7 a.m. I am taking to Hanoi. (use "relative pronoun")
I'm wondering if the 2nd sentence is correct. S + to be + taking to + places.
Anyway, here is my answer. The plane which leaves at 7 a.m is taking me to Hanoi.
Thanks in advance.
"I am taking to Hanoi" is not a complete sentence. (Taking what?)
In the U.S., we say "The plane that leaves ..."
You cannot say, however, "The plane that leaves at 7 a.m is taking me to Hanoi" because it implies that the plane has not yet departed and therefore cannot be taking you (present tense) anywhere.
From your original sentence: The plane leaved left at 7 a.m., it appears that you don't mean to use the present tense of "leave" in your sentence at all.
So, you want to say "The plane that left at 7 p.m. is taking me to Hanoi," which is correct, assuming that you're on board the aircraft, but not idiomatic, even if one assumes that you are talking to somebody on the ground.
There is no problem with using the present tense to refer to the future. It is quite normal to say things like "The plane which leaves at 7:00 tomorrow is taking me to Hanoi" and this is the same as saying "The plane which will leave at 7:00 tomorrow will be taking me to Hanoi.". Both are normal and idiomatic.
As sdgraham implied, when you use "take" to mean "travel on a form of transportation," you must include the type of transportation or vehicle: you can take a bus, train, taxi, plane, ferry, or pedicab. You don't have to say where you are going with it (that might have been stated already), but you have to have the vehicle, and it must not be one that you operate yourself (with this meaning, you can't take a bicycle or a horse).
I am taking to Hanoi tomorrow.
I am going to Hanoi tomorrow.
I am taking a bus to Hanoi tomorrow.
Are you going to Hanoi? Yes, I am taking the train.
Like djmc and as my examples indicate, I find nothing wrong with using the present tense to describe future events as long as adverbs or other context makes the time sequence clear. Sometimes the "present progressive" is required, sometimes it is not.
Well, it's time to say good-bye. Tomorrow I move to Hanoi.
It's time to say good-bye. I am moving to Hanoi.
It's time to say good-bye. I will move/will be moving to Hanoi tomorrow.
It's time to say good-bye. I move to Hanoi.
That's fine. This type of construction is used in written rather than spoken English. However one could imagine someone sitting on a plane writing a diary or blog. I'm not sure that I agree with Fabulist that present tenses referring to the future need to be anchored by an adverb of time. I put in tomorrow to indicate that it was future, but there would be no necessity. A present tense can even refer to the past: "Caesar crosses the Rubicon, war with Pompey is declared". This is literary but quite common and is an imitation of Latin. The time of statements is often established by the general context rather than the tense.
This isn't quite right; it has to be punctuated, because the participial phrase is an appositive: "The plane, having left at 7 a.m., it taking me to Hanoi."
If you want to specify that the plane that is taking you to Hanoi is the one that left at 7 a.m. rather than some other plane with a different departure time, then you have to write or say, "The plane that had left at 7 a.m. is taking me to Hanoi," or "The plane that left . . . at 7 a.m."
I think that that kind of exercise requires combining the two sentences without changing the actual words used in the original. In all the examples provided, "is" has been used instead of "am". I'd propose the following:
"I am taking the plane to Hanoi that leaves at 7 a.m."