Should and Be supposed to

Question

HiWhat is the difference between Be supposed to and Should. Do they have the same usage.Exp: He should be here by now.          He is sopposed to be here by now.Thanks in advance

Eimai_Anglos · Accepted Answer

He should be here by now. According to my calculations. If the bus is on time.
He is supposed to be here by now. He agreed the precise time with me yesterday.

Davkett · Answer

Hi Eimai Anglos,

I'm not familiar with, 'He agreed the precise time with me yesterday.' Is that British English? Or a typo?

Here we would say, 'He agreed with me on the precise time yesterday' or, 'We agreed on the precise time yesterday'.

Eimai_Anglos · Answer

'He agreed the precise time (of arrival) with me yesterday.' is British English as I (a native speaker) would normally say it. The words in brackets are "understood" from the context.

'He agreed with me on the precise time yesterday' is what we would call "a bit wordy".
'We agreed on the precise time yesterday' is fine.

Davkett · Answer

Merriam-Webster seems to think it is 'chiefly British'. I guess that's why I didn't recognize it.

I think it might be a reasonable rebuttal to say that 'He agreed with me on the precise time yesterday' would only be a bit wordy as an option to 'We [meaning only 'the two of us'] agreed on the precise time yesterday.'

If there are more than two people in the context, then it wouldn't be wordy, because other individuals present might not be party to the agreement.

Khoff · Answer

He should be here by now. According to my calculations. If the bus is on time.

He is supposed to be here by now. He agreed the precise time with me yesterday.

First, I also feel that "he agreed the time with me" sounds very strange to American ears. "He agreed on the time with me," or "we agreed on the time" sounds better. (I have no problem with "we picked the time" or "we chose the time" but "agree" does not seem to want to take a direct object in AmE. You can agree on something, or agree to do something, but not just agree something.) However, I'll certainly take your word for it that it sounds fine in BrE.

Going back to the original question - in the two examples above I would not see anything wrong, or any change in meaning, if you switched "should be" and "is supposed to be" in the two sentences. Eimai Anglos, could you please explain what you see to be the difference?

I'm trying to figure out if I use "he should" and "he's supposed to" differently according to any pattern that I can explain. Here's what I think, although it's just intuition, not any rule I ever learned:

To express a moral or ethical imperative, I would be more likely to use "should." We should be thoughtful of the feelings of others. You should take better care of yourself.

To express expectations imposed by another person, I would be more likely to use "is supposed to." You're supposed to clear the table before you go out to play.

To indicate "one would reasonably expect that..." I would use either one. It's nine o'clock - he should be here by now. It's nine o'clock - he's supposed to be here by now.

I'd like to hear other opinions as well.

Davkett · Answer

I think these two options, in this context, may have only the slightest difference in what one might infer. To my ear, in this context, 'supposed to be here by now' conjures up a feeling that the requirement to be on time has been placed on the person who is not here yet. 'Should be here by now' puts more emphasis on the circumstances (weather, traffic, illness, etc.) being favorable to his being here on time.

Khoff, I think your three intuited principles are very workable.

Khoff · Answer

Thanks, davkett! I have one more to add, that my daughter reminded me of - occasionally, "should" is used to mean "probably, most likely" without any implication of obligation or requirement. This "speculative" sense of should is very hard to distinguish from the "obligation" sense without intonation and context. For instance, I might say to my husband, "where are your car keys?" and he might reply "they should be on my desk somewhere," just meaning "they are probably on my desk." Then, after I have borrowed them and forgotten to replace them, he might say "where are my car keys? They should be on my desk, you know!" meaning "they ought to be on my desk where they belong!" In this case, where "should be" is used to mean "very likely is" you cannot substitute "supposed to be."

My daughter is my best consultant for tricky questions like this. How many 16-year-olds do you know who are willing to discuss grammar and semantics with their mothers during an evening stroll? I consider myself very fortunate that she share my interest in this sort of thing.

Anonymous · Answer

Thank you all and an especial thank to you and your dauther, Khoff for your clear and helpful explanation.

Should and Be supposed to

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions