Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 22 May 2001 11:30:45 +0800 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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/
|
|
|