ATEG Archives

May 2001

ATEG@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
Some suppositions
From:
shun Tang <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 22 May 2001 11:30:45 +0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (21 lines) 
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/

ATOM RSS1 RSS2