Craig,
But cf, "fond," which is unambiguously an adjective:
I am fond of chocolate.
*I am fond.
In other words, that's only evidence that "supposed" has a mandatory
complement. That test is not dispositive for deciding whether the word
is verbal or adjectival. I don't dispute, though, that "to" is closely
related. Witness the reduction that Herb notes.
BTW, looking up "supposed" in Huddleston and Pullum, I find they call it
a participial adjective too, although without any argument.
Karl
On 2/20/2011 2:49 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
> Karl,
> I wonder about the participial adjective judgment, just because "to"
> seems somewhat attached to it.
> "I was pleased to meet you."
> "I was pleased."
> "I was supposed to meet you."
> "I was supposed to."
> *? "I was supposed."
> I think one reason the phonology reduces is that "to" is not quite so
> separate as an element.
> I suspect that is partly what you mean by quasi modal? It's not just
> supposed, but "be supposed to" that acts in that way?
>
> Craig
>
>
>
> 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/
>>
>
> 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/
|
