Jack,
Just one addition to your explanation and I hope it helps.
Bond has lit the fuse and it is supposed by him to explode.
The bomb is not even mentioned, but implied as attached to the fuse. The actual subject to the second clause is the infintive "for it to explode." To use "it" for the bomb makes it seem ungrammatical.
Bond has lit the fuse and for the bomb to explode is supposed by him. (analytical)
Bond has lit the fuse and for it to explode is supposed by him. (unclear reference of it)
When the understood bomb subplants the postion as agent of explode, it shifts the meaning of "is supposed" further afield.
Bruce
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!
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.htmland 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/