Be supposed to。 Be supposed to

When to use suppose vs. supposed to

But I got caught in traffic or I had a problem, a delay. A lot of this reluctance has to do with the way you say it. In the passive only, "suppose" has acquired a sense. We use this for a rule that is often not followed. The original meaning of "suppose" is : "think", or "assume". " , but in older or more formal English it can take a direct object and an epistemic infinitive complement "I supposed him to be. I hope these examples have made it clear for you. You were supposed to go to the library. Nowadays "suppose" nearly always takes a sentential complement "I suppose that. I got to the airport late and I missed my flight at 8:00. But in modern English, this expression doesn't really behave like an ordinary passive-voice version of to suppose. You can see that the verb gets a somewhat different sense in the passive voice from what would normally be expected. "they are supposed to do X", "I am not supposed to do Y". Historically, it originated as a passive-voice version of the verb suppose, meaning in this context "expect". It means "you should not come here", "you are not meant to come here". : but I have the feeling contracted sposta is far more tightly wedded to deontic contexts. We see the same devoicing of originally voiced fricatives in certain other verbs that have developed specialized meanings in fixed expressions containing the word "to":• Supposed to is a very common phrase, as in: you're not supposed to come here. Children often talk or laugh or make noise in school. Maybe innate isn't the best word to exemplify "straddling both senses", but you catch my drift. JohnLawler, Cerberus: I don't think it's an "absolute" not much is, when it comes to language use! To suppose something means to assume something. This kind of phonemic voicing assimilation between words is unpredictable and not common in English; so I think "to be supposed to" should be classified as fixed expression that has become somewhat distinct from the ordinary verb "suppose", just as "to be born" has become somewhat separate from the ordinary verb "to bear". When used in a passive construction, you use a form of the verb to be plus the past participle of to suppose, which is supposed. All of your friends are there except for one person. We have suppose and supposed to. All I know for sure here is that to my ear, John's comment would sound a bit odd with fully-articulated supposed to, but that would be perfectly okay with your Cerberus last comment. I have courses on vocabulary, speaking, listening, pronunciation, idioms, phrasal verbs, check out the link with this video to see the available courses. I realized that they really are quite confusing. The "supposed" part is therefore in origin a past participle, which is why it has the "-ed" suffix. Be supposed to is what we use when something is required or expected but maybe not always done. The expression "supposed to", when used to describe what someone should do, is always spelled "supposed to" and always goes with a form of the verb "to be" E. But in the specialised deontic sense, the construction has survived. This information should not be considered complete, up to date, and is not intended to be used in place of a visit, consultation, or advice of a legal, medical, or any other professional. So "He was supposed to go" is the passive of a construction which is now rather restricted, in the epistemic sense of "It was thought that he was going". To be supposed to means to be expected to, to be obliged to. That is how suppose is used as a verb, to say that you assume something is true. Trouble is I get confused when I apply that thinking to John's first comment, which appears to contain elements of both senses as with You're sposta drink this 'cos it's sposta be good for you. JohnLawler: To my "inner grammarian", Language is supposed to be innate strongly implies People think the ability to use language is something humans are born with, whereas Language is sposta be innate smacks more of People should use language in whatever way seems natural to them. This only applies to "have to" as a fixed expression with a specific, special meaning; it doesn't occur when the word "have" or "has" just happens to come before "to", as in "She will give all she has to fight cancer.。 。 。 。 。 。 。

>

word choice

。 。 。 。 。 。 。

>

When to use suppose vs. supposed to

。 。 。 。 。 。

>

word choice

。 。 。 。 。 。 。

>

When to use suppose vs. supposed to

。 。 。 。 。

>

Be supposed to

。 。 。 。 。 。 。

>

When to use suppose vs. supposed to

。 。 。 。 。 。

>

Be supposed to

。 。 。 。 。

>