Supposed to help vs supposed to be helping

Question

Hi, I'm Ricky. This question has been bugging me for quite some time and I hope someone is kind enough to help me out.

You are supposed to help yourself in such situations.
vs.
You are supposed to be helping yourself in such situations.

I'm there's some differences between these two sentences
.
Please help.
Thanks a bunch

AlpheccaStars · Accepted Answer

1) You are supposed to help yourself in such situations.
vs.
2) You are supposed to be helping yourself in such situations.

I'm thinking that there are some differences between these two sentences.

Either one is fine, and there are only nuanced differences.

#1 is more like a general rule or precept.
#2 has more of the idea that the activity of "helping" will occur over a time period.
I would say "You are supposed to be helping yourself" if I were in the process of helping them, especially if that person was not doing anything at all! It would be a gentle complaint.

Anonymous · Answer

I'm Ricky again. Thank you for correcting my previous message as I have left out some words.

After reading your post, are you implying that "you are supposed to be..." is more suitable when we are talking about a specific situation? Whereas "you are suppose to..." is more appropriate when we mean what a person is expected to do in general.

For instance:

A: You are supposed to be helping her later at the party. (Specific situation)

B. You are supposed to help her no matter what happens. (Generally speaking)

By the way, do you recommend any topics on English grammar related to my questions that I should read up?

Thank you

AlpheccaStars · Answer

A: You are supposed to be helping her later at the party. (Specific situation)

I would interpret this as
"I expect you to help her (for some period of time) at the party." "Her" could refer to the lady who is giving the party. The "helping" might be serving the guests, cleaning up, or other tasks related to making the party a fun time.

B. You are supposed to help her no matter what happens. (Generally speaking) "Her" will usually refer to the mother, the sister, the wife, etc. and it is your duty (by the society's moral values) to help her if she needs assistance.

AnonymousBy the way, do you recommend any topics on English grammar related to my questions that I should read up?

Usually grammar books do not get so specific. This is more to do with definitions than with syntax.

Avangi · Answer

After reading your post, are you implying that "you are supposed to be..." is more suitable when we are talking about a specific situation? Whereas "you are suppose to..." is more appropriate when we mean what a person is expected to do in general.

Pardon me for butting in. - A.

"You are supposed to X when Y happens."
In the simple present tense, you need this separate "when" statement.
"You are supposed to bow." (But when??)

"You are supposed to be X-ing [when Y is happening]."
With the present progressive, the "when" is optional. Without it, the time is NOW.
"You are supposed to be helping!" (right now!)

In the past tense, the progressive doesn't make much difference:
You were supposed to help!
You were supposed to be helping!

Of course the infinitive is non-finite (is that redundant?), meaning it has no tense.
So the "were" can refer to the supposing.
"You were supposed (then) to be helping! (now)" Get busy!

AlpheccaStars · Answer

Avangi"You are supposed to X when Y happens."
In the simple present tense, you need this separate "when" statement.
"You are supposed to bow." (But when??)

Hi Avangi;

Thanks for your input.
I don't see a requirement for a "when" clause; an adverbial phrase does just fine for specific situations.

For example, suppose I have just entered the Queen of England's reception hall. My companion whispers urgently, "You are supposed to bow!" or "You are supposed to be bowing!"

I remembered that beforehand she had told me "You are supposed to bow in the presence of the Queen. That's protocol."

In the case of a general precept, no when is necessary at all, and it does not imply now either:

According to the Bill of Rights, Americans are supposed to be able to worship as they please.
According to the 10 commandments, you are supposed to honor your mother and father.

AvangiSo the "were" can refer to the supposing.
"You were supposed (then) to be helping! (now)" Get busy!

Suppose is the main verb. In this meaning (expectation), it is used in the passive voice.
Expect has the same construction:
You are expected to honor your mother and father.
In our family, the youngest child was supposed (expected) to feed and walk the dog.

Regards,
A-

s

Avangi · Answer

Great post, A-

s! You're right. My comments were much too general. I meant to focus on the poster's question about "supposed to help vs. supposed to be helping," but it surely didn't come out that way!
The effect is analogous to simple present vs. present continuous, but of course that's not what it is!

Sorry!

- A. (I'll see if I can put it another way! Durned infinitive anyway!)

Aleilei · Answer

AvangiIn the past tense, the progressive doesn't make much difference:
You were supposed to help!
You were supposed to be helping

Hi Avangi,

Thank you. I have another question. What's the difference between am/are supposed to do and was/were supposed to do ? Can I understand it like this:

am/are supposed to do = should do

was/were supposed to do = should have done

?

Avangi · Answer

aleileiam/are supposed to do = should do
was/were supposed to do = should have done

Hi, aleilei,

I'd say you're right on the money.

Supposed to help vs supposed to be helping

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions