You're all like human grammar books.  :-) 


 
Linda Comerford
317.786.6404
[log in to unmask]
www.comerfordconsulting.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 3:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Supposed versus Suppose

Linda,
    Thanks for the warm thanks. Glad to hear we helped. Don't hesitate to
ask again.

Craig>


You are all so fabulously helpful!
>
> Regarding the 007 analogy for an agent, that's so creative.  I wish 
> I'd had a teacher like you when I was in school.
>
> Those of you who made the participle connection have given me a 
> starting point they are all familiar with because their instinct is to 
> say, "We seen"
> or "We done."  So that became a starting point for our workshop where 
> I created a chart clearly showing them the differences among present, 
> past, and past participles of those verbs.  Indicating that "supposed" 
> with the "d" is another example of a past participle like "seen" and 
> "done" will make sense to them.
>
> What I've been lucky to avoid thus far is a question about those being 
> labeled PAST participles when they can clearly indicate an action in 
> the present too.  Craig, I never realized that tense indicators occur 
> just once in a verb phrase and what indicates the tense is the first 
> element.
> That's
> so helpful and clear to me and will be to my participants as well.
>
> You thanked me for being gentle with you.  The thanks are mine to all 
> of you for being patient with me.  I'm happy I now understand this and 
> can communicate it to a class that did, indeed, care enough about oral 
> grammar to ask such great questions.
>
> Linda
>
> Linda Comerford
> 317.786.6404
> [log in to unmask]
>  <blocked::http://www.comerfordconsulting.com/>
> www.comerfordconsulting.com
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jack Baker
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 6:25 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Supposed versus Suppose
>
>
> Dear Linda,
> I've not been following this thread very closely, so I hope I'm not 
> repeating too much of what has already been said. Recently I had to 
> explain something similar to what you're trying to explain in my 
> Freshman Comp.
> course--a class filled with students who also struggle with technical 
> grammar terms. I went about it by discussing agents.
>
> In a passive construction like "we are supposed to pick up the groceries,"
> I
> understand there to be two main verbs and two agents--but only one of 
> the agents is explicitly stated, and I think this is what often leads 
> to the confusion. Who is doing the supposing? We know that "we" are 
> the one's picking up the groceries, but who is supposing that we are 
> going to do that thing?
>
> It has helped me to explain the grammatical role of the agent to my 
> students. I usually employ a somewhat silly explanation: I tell the 
> students to think of the agent in a passive construction like the 007 
> of grammatical agents because he's always doing stuff for other people 
> (his government, his women, etc.) and often times incognito/behind the 
> scenes. So we might say the following:
>
> Bond lit the fuse on the bomb, and it was supposed to explode or Bond 
> has lit the fuse, and it is supposed to explode.
>
> In both of these sentences, 007 is the subject and agent of the first 
> clause (both of which are active voice)--he is doing the lighting. 
> However, in the second clause of each sentence we have a subject, "it" 
> (the bomb), which is the agent of the infinitive (to explode): "it 
> [the bomb] was to explode [at the set time]."  So the bomb is doing 
> the exploding.
>
> The second agent, however, is unstated and belongs with the verb 
> "supposed."
> Someone is doing the supposing, the obligating. In the sentences 
> above, this person is 007. He has lit the bomb, and now he is 
> expecting/supposing it to explode.
>
> "Bond has lit the fuse, and it is supposed [by him] to explode."  This 
> is an example of how, at least with the "suppose" in a passive 
> construction, we can imply obligation without stating who is doing 
> (the agent) the obligating/supposing. Thus, 007 remains the unstated 
> agent and his cover isn't blown.
>
> The Bond example has also helped me explain why we have the '-ed' 
> ending on the end of a verb like "suppose" in this construction.  When 
> we add the agent into the sentence and move it a step away from the 
> dental 't' in "to,"
> the phonology of it becomes clearer to the students:
>
> Bond has lit the fuse and it is suppose by him to explode.
> or
> Bond has lit the fuse and it is supposed by him to explode.
>
> Obviously, neither are standard in spoken English--I don't think I've 
> ever heard someone so explicitly state the agent: "supposed by him." 
> However, it does help to say it out loud to hear the clear difference 
> between each.
>
> In the end, I'm just not sure how to explain the '-ed' of "supposed"
> without
> talking about the passive.
>
> Hope this helps!
>
>
> JB
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 20, 2011, at 11:34 PM, Karl Hagen wrote:
>
>
> Linda,
>
> I would explain it this way:
>
> "supposed" isn't a past tense, it's a past participle (and that's true 
> whether you want to look at it as part of a passive or as an adjective).
> So there's no actual conflict using it with a present-tense verb.
>
> Here are the things I emphasize when talking about past participles 
> with students who don't have much grammatical background:
>
> 1. The "past" in "past participle" is misleading. (As is "present" in 
> "present participle"). Participles are verb forms that have no actual 
> tense of their own. As Herb has said, the tense in a verb phrase is 
> expressed in the first verb. I tell my students to think of "past 
> participle" and "present participle" as arbitrary labels that we use 
> for historical reasons.
>
> 2. For most verbs, the past participle looks just like the past tense, 
> but they are actually two different forms. You can see this in many 
> cases (although the "supposed" sentence isn't an ideal example) by 
> substituting an irregular verb. For example,
>
> I have ridden many motorcycles.
> I have raced many motorcycles.
>
> This shows that in the above frame, the word required after "have" 
> isn't a simple past tense, but a different form, one traditionally 
> called the past participle.
>
>
> On 2/20/2011 5:22 PM, Linda Comerford wrote:
>
>
> Thanks to all of you for your comments regarding my "supposed" question.
>
>
> However, I still don't know exactly what I should write to the class 
> by way
>
>
> of explanation.  They know very little about grammar, its jargon, 
> etc., so I
>
>
> need a simple explanation for them about why the "d" is necessary when
>
>
> "supposed" is not used in the past tense.
>
>
>
> I read with interest the passive connection; however, "supposed" can 
> be
>
>
> active too.  The class understood my explanation of using "supposed" 
> in the
>
>
> past tense even though we don't actually hear the "d" when we say the 
> word
>
>
> aloud.  But I couldn't explain an active present tense sentence like 
> the
>
>
> following:
>
>
>
>      I am supposed to provide additional information about this.
>
>
>
> Maybe the "to" after it is what also requires what appears to be a 
> past
>
>
> tense form of it?
>
>
>
> Thanks for continuing to share whatever thoughts you may have about this.
>
>
>
> Linda Comerford
>
>
> 317.786.6404
>
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> www.comerfordconsulting.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>
>
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
>
>
> Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 11:24 PM
>
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> Subject: Re: Supposed versus Suppose
>
>
>
> I'd like to pick up on a comment Karl makes.  Final coronal stops (/t/ 
> and
>
>
> /d/) lax in speech and frequently delete, especially before a word 
> initial
>
>
> consonant.  This is sometimes called the "ice cream" phenomenon, and 
> there
>
>
> are plenty of examples, including "ice cream," "skim milk," "popcorn,"
> etc.,
>
>
> all of which have lost the final coronal marking the past participle.  
> We do
>
>
> this regularly with coronal stops that are final in coda clusters, 
> like
>
>
> "las' night," "nex' week," etc.  If we tie this final coronal deletion 
> to
>
>
> the point Craig makes about "useta," "wanna,"  "oughta," etc., then 
> the
>
>
> commonly used reduced form "sposta" (with long o) fits in nicely as 
> another
>
>
> quasi-modal.
>
>
>
> Herb
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>
>
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karl Hagen
>
>
> Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 8:53 PM
>
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> Subject: Re: Supposed versus Suppose
>
>
>
> 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/UrlBlockedErr
>
>
> or.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/
>
>
>
> 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/