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/