Was to have, is to have
Dear all,
I would like to know the meaning of the following sentences.
1.The plane is to arrive on time.
2.The plane was to arrive on time.
3.The plane is to have arrived on time.
4.The plane was to have arrived on time.
Thanking you.
Top answer
1. The plane is on schedule to arrive at the specified time. 2.
- 1.
- The plane is on schedule to arrive at the specified time.
- 2.
- The plane was expected to arrive on schedule, but it didn't.
- 3.
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. The plane is on schedule to arrive at the specified time.
2. The plane was expected to arrive on schedule, but it didn't.
3. and 4. are ungrammatical.
0The only one that immediately makes sense to me is (2), which is a future-in-the past sentence, with meaning similar to "The plane would arrive on time". I cannot completely rule out the others, but they are hard to make sense of without context. (1) is a structure typically used for commands or instructions, e.g. "You are to report at 9 am", but it is unusual in relation to a plane arriving o
0I think that (4) could be used if, at the time, the plane was thought to be on schedule, but with hindsight it was known that the plane did not arrive on time. It is quite a complex context that is needed.
0
Related Questions