0
Angliholic Posted 19 years ago
Grammar
The train is supposed to arrive an hour ago, but it didn't.
The train is supposed to arrive an hour ago, but it didn't.
The train is supposed to have arrived an hour ago, but it didn't.
Which one of the above is more logical and why? Thanks.
The train is supposed to have arrived an hour ago, but it didn't.
Which one of the above is more logical and why? Thanks.
Top answer
When you use "is supposed to" the possibility still exists that it will happen. If the train was expected an hour ago, to say it's supposed to happen doesn't make sense. It WAS supposed to happend, but it did not.
- When you use "is supposed to" the possibility still exists that it will happen.
- If the train was expected an hour ago, to say it's supposed to happen doesn't make sense.
- It WAS supposed to happend, but it did not.
- "
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
8 Answers
0
When you use "is supposed to" the possibility still exists that it will happen. If the train was expected an hour ago, to say it's supposed to happen doesn't make sense. It WAS supposed to happend, but it did not.
I prefer "the train was supposed to arrive an hour ago." I don't see any difference in "The train was supposed to have arrived an hour ago."
I prefer "the train was supposed to arrive an hour ago." I don't see any difference in "The train was supposed to have arrived an hour ago."
00
Grammar GeekWhen you use "is supposed to" the possibility still exists that it will happen. If the train was expected an hour ago, to say it's supposed to happen doesn't make sense. It WAS supposed to happend, but it did not.
What if we reword the base as this? We/People suppose now that the train should have arrived an hour ago, but it didn
00
I'm not sure I'm understanding the difference.
The original train schedule had the train arriving at 3. Then, there were delays and the train was supposed to arrive at 5. Now it's 6.
The train was supposed to arrive at 3. Then it was supposed to have arrived an hour ago. Now I suppose it will be here when it get here.
The original train schedule had the train arriving at 3. Then, there were delays and the train was supposed to arrive at 5. Now it's 6.
The train was supposed to arrive at 3. Then it was supposed to have arrived an hour ago. Now I suppose it will be here when it get here.
00
Grammar GeekI'm not sure I'm understanding the difference.
The original train schedule had the train arriving at 3. Then, there were delays and the train was supposed to arrive at 5. Now it's 6.
If it's 5 now, is it right to say "the train is supposed to have arrived two hour ago?"
The train was supposed to arrive a
00
0
Grammar GeekOnly "The train was supposed to ..." makes sense to me.Thanks, GG.
For the sake of clarity, do the following sound right?
John is supposed to have come an hour ago. (We suppose now that John should have come an hour ago.)
John is supposed to come an hour ago. (We suppose now that he should come an hour ago.)
00
1 and 3 OK. 2 - doesn't sound right. is supposed to always implies now or in the future, so it can't be used with an ago phrase.
4 John was supposed to have come an hour ago. Also OK.
CJ
4 John was supposed to have come an hour ago. Also OK.
CJ
00
By the way, the paraphrases you're using indicate you haven't quite got the meaning. (I think.)
The idiom be supposed to often has a meaning similar to must or have to. There is no true "supposing" (assuming, guessing, estimating) going on here -- except in the sense that "It is supposed that" can mean "It goes without saying that", "It is a duty to ...".
The idiom be supposed to often has a meaning similar to must or have to. There is no true "supposing" (assuming, guessing, estimating) going on here -- except in the sense that "It is supposed that" can mean "It goes without saying that", "It is a duty to ...".
0
Related Questions