0
YETYland Posted 9 years ago
Vocabulary

Was supposed to come for reproach VS. past obligation

The overwhelming majority of contexts for 'He was supposed to come at 5'

show it means a kind of reproach - it's already 6 and he didn't come at the time agreed. Similar to 'He should've come at 5'.

The questions are:

1. Can this sentence suggest merely stating a past obligation as in we'd agreed upon 5, but I don't know if he came or not?

2. If it usually cannot, is there not even a slightest ambiguity to it?

3. If there is still an element of ambiguity, am I correct in thinking that the perfect infinitive sometimes used in 'He was supposed to have come at 5' is there to avoid it?

4. And thus, at least in some contexts, is it correct to correlate

He was supposed to come. = He was to come.

He was supposed to have come. = He was to have come.

Or do they function differently (tense-wise and meaning-wise)?

As always, appreciate your efforts in advance. Thank you,

YETY

  

Top answer

YETYland 1. Can this sentence suggest merely stating a past obligation as in we'd agreed upon 5, but I don't know if he came or not? Yes.

— Mister Micawber

  • YETYland 1.
  • Can this sentence suggest merely stating a past obligation as in we'd agreed upon 5, but I don't know if he came or not?
  • Yes.
  • YETYland 2.
  • If it usually cannot, is there not even a slightest ambiguity to it?
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

1 Answers
0
YETYland1. Can this sentence suggest merely stating a past obligation as in we'd agreed upon 5, but I don't know if he came or not?

Yes.

YETYland2. If it usually cannot, is there not even a slightest ambiguity to it?

There is always ambiguity in a sentence in isolation. Context will show which is meant—as you have

0

Related Questions