Paul,
I think you're right. Ultimately, this is a confusion based on normal
phonological processes. Unless one is being extremely careful and
over-articulating one's pronunciation, it's normal not to release the
final /d/ of a past-tense verb when the following word is followed by
another consonant with the same place of articulation (as is the case
with /t/). So students simply don't hear the -ed at the end of the word
and therefore reinterpret.
BTW, although "supposed" may have originated as a passive, I wouldn't
analyze it as a passive voice in present-day English. I think "supposed"
is now a participial adjective, one that has developed a quasi-modal
meaning quite distinct from a passive version of "suppose."
Karl
On 2/19/2011 4:53 PM, Paul E. Doniger wrote:
> Is this the same error that I often see among my high school students
> with "used to" being written, "use to?" E.g>, *"I was suppose to do my
> homework on time." and *"I use to always do my homework on time." I
> don't hear the second one as passive.
> Paul
> "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
> improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Sent:* Sat, February 19, 2011 6:51:42 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Supposed versus Suppose
>
> Brian,
> I think that is undoubtedly its source. Like any passive, the first
> auxiliary (am, are,was, were) would carry the tense and "supposed"
> would be past participle. But think about how awkward it sounds to
> say "the government supposes me to pay my taxes." It's not so awkward
> to say "the government requires me to pay me taxes" or "obligates me
> to pay my taxes." The alternative possibility is that it has become a
> three word construction that acts like a modal auxiliary. "I am
> supposed to pay my taxes." "I should pay my taxes." "I must pay my
> taxes."
> A close parallel would be "am going to," which started out as meaning
> movement toward a goal (I am going to the park), broadened out as an
> expression of intention (I am going to vote in the next election), and
> now can be used as modal predictor, as parallel to "will" ("It is going
> to rain").
> Other similar constructs would be "ought to" and "have to" and "be
> able to."
> This seems to me another good example of grammaticalization at work.
> Words or phrases can change their function over time, and sometimes
> they will seem to be part way there.
>
> Craig
>
>
> > Isn't it passive voice? If "we are supposed to x," someone (or everyone)
> > supposes that we should and will x, but the identity of the supposer
> isn't
> > really relevant, so we leave it out by using passive voice (in which case
> > we use "-ed" even in the present tense).
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> > [[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] on
> behalf of Linda Comerford
> > [[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
> > Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 6:07 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Supposed versus Suppose
> >
> > Help!
> >
> > During an oral grammar workshop, somehow the class got into a discussion
> > about the difference between "supposed" and "suppose." The participants
> > didn't pronounce "supposed" with the "d" and had assumed the word was
> > "suppose." We discussed how past tense verbs have the "ed" at the end,
> > whether we enunciate it or not, and thought that would suffice. It didn't
> > because someone pointed out that "we are supposed to" is an an example of
> > a present tense verb that still needed the "d" at the end. Okay, I must
> > admit that stumped me.
> >
> > Further confusion arose when someone contrasted "supposed" with "suppose"
> > like, "Do you suppose we will ever resolve these questions?" At that
> > point, I wasn't sure we ever would and called a break hoping I could find
> > a dictionary to differentiate those words and how they worked. The
> > dictionary was no help at all; the explanations were contradictory
> instead
> > of enlightening.
> >
> > Can any of you help me with this? I'd appreciate whatever you can send
> > either through the listserv or directly to me. Since I'm "supposed" to
> > follow up with the class, I "suppose" I should have a clear explanation
> > for the class. Thanks so much.
> >
> > Linda
> >
> >
> > Linda Comerford
> > 317.786.6404
> > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> >
> www.comerfordconsulting.com<https://webmail.smcm.edu/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
> On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 10:55 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: "thats" for "whose"
> >
> > We’ve had considerable discussion of relative “that” from time to time,
> > and I thought the following exchange from ADS-L might be of interest.
> >
> > Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
> > Emeritus Professor of English
> > Ball State University
> > Muncie, IN 47306
> > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > -----------------------
> > Sender: American Dialect Society
> > <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>
> > Poster: Jonathan Lighter
> > <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>
> > Subject: Re: "I've a 24" 2.4Ghz iMac _that's_ hard drive recently
> > packed
> > in."
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > I mentioned this some years ago. I had a freshman in the early '80s who
> > insisted that "that's" was correct because "whose" referred to people.
> >
> > When I surveyed English Department graduate students with a
> > fill-in-the-blank quiz, a fair number filled in the blanks with "that's"
> > instead of "whose."
> >
> > God knows what they wrote in their own papers. They were mainly
> working on
> > masters' rather than doctoral degrees, if that makes anyone feel better.
> > And
> > did I mention that the degrees would be in English? Yeah, I guess I did.
> >
> > JL
> >
> >
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Laurence Horn
> >> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > it's an instance of "that" (reanalyzed from complementizer to
> >> > relative pronoun) in the genitive, as noted.
> >> >
> >
> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface
> > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
> > leave the list"
> >
> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> >
> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface
> > at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or
> > leave the list"
> >
> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> >
> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface
> > at:
> > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> > and select "Join or leave the list"
> >
> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> >
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
> "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
