to be to

Question

I want to say I have had an agreement with a company to send me a large amount of goods by yesterday, but it has not arrived yet.

The shipment was to arrive one day ago.
The shipment was to have arrived one day ago.

Which sentence carries my idea more?
Also I am wondering what the subtleties of these sentences are.

Thanks for any suggestion.

Maple · Accepted Answer

How about these two:

(1) My shipment should have arrived one day before.

(2) My shipment was scheduled to arrive yesterday, but...

Inchoateknowledge · Answer

Thank you.
I would also like to know if my sentences are correct and what they mean and where they differ in meaning.

CalifJim · Answer

Both sentences are correct, and both have essentially the same meaning.
The second is closer to your intent because you are concerned that the shipment has not arrived yet.
The first merely focuses on the fact that some obligation existed in the past without as much emphasis on the implication that this obligation has not been fulfilled.

The difference is quite similar to the slight difference between these near equivalents, which I would explain in the same terms:

You said that it should be here by now.
You said that it should have been here by now.

Just one further observation: In my opinion the idiom to be to is somewhat too literary for business correspondence. If I were writing it, I would use should or be supposed to.

CJ

Inchoateknowledge · Answer

Beautiful!
Thanks!

to be to

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions