Because "should" and "ought" are modern reflexes of historic past tense forms.  "Be," on the other hand, can be marked for past or non-past.  Should, which is, of course, derived historically from shall, no longer acts as if it has past meaning, but it has past form and can't take additional past tense morphology.  "Ought" is the historical past tense form "owe," going back to Old English agan "to owe," agte "owed."  Since it too has past tense marking it can't take another past tense suffix.  Of course, it too no longer behaves semantically as if it's a past tense.

Herb Stahlke
Ball State University

<<< [log in to unmask]  5/21 10:42p >>>
Please consider the following suppositions. When referring to the past,
"ought to", "be supposed to", and "should", couple with "have" + the past
participle:
Ex: The shipment ought to have arrived yesterday.
Ex: The shipment was supposed to have arrived yesterday.
Ex: The shipment should have arrived yesterday.

On the other hand, we seem to have only:
Ex: The shipment was supposed to arrive yesterday.

Why is it, or why does it seem, that "be supposed to" can take either the
"have" + pp or the simple present, when the others cannot?

Shun Tang

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/