Supposed

[tskelton]

First of all, I have been lurking in this forum for quite some time. I share your affinity for language. Thanks for your thought-provoking questions and comments.

My question regards the use of the word 'supposed' in informal usage. An example:

I am [i]supposed[/i] to go to lunch at 12:30 today.

I have seen (and used) this construct all of my life. Within the last 5 or so years, however, have I noticed the misspelling 'suppose' being used.

I am [i]suppose[/i] to go to lunch at 12:30 today.

I see this error in professional e-mails, in printed brochures, etc. Is this something you too have noticed? And fairly recently at that?

I appreciate your thoughts on this!

-Todd

 

[Thadeus]

Todd,
While I haven't seen the non-'ed' version used myself, I would think that you should be able to replace the word with a synonym and see that it ought to have a 'd'

I am supposed to go to lunch at 12:30 today.

'Expect' seems to me to be the best synonym to replace 'suppose' in this conotation.

I am expected to go to lunch at 12:30 today.

'Assume' will work to prove the point, but doesn't work overall as a substitute.

I am assumed to go to lunch at 12:30 today.

My thoughts anyways...

~Thadeus

 

[Dimandja]

I have seen that too. I think people are writing phonetically when that happens. Supposed to: the "d" sound tends to vanish in that construction, in favor of the "t" sound.

And this is not helping either:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Realm/1477/classics/classics1/haistlwy.html

 

[Thadeus]

To Michael Bolton's defense (my god what am I doing here...[Thadeus bangs head off desk]), his website listing his discography has the word spelled 'Supposed'.

~Thadeus
[Thadeus now goes off to wash his hands]

 

[tskelton]

Dimandja,

I think you're exactly right about writing phonetically. However, I like to think that people pay more attention to detail. Oh well....

-Todd

 

[Dimandja]

>[Bolton's] website listing his discography has the word spelled 'Supposed'

I noticed the correct spelling too (sometimes though). Except the lyrics were still misspelled.

Artistic license perhaps? Like all those "4 You" and "2 U" by various 'clever' artists?

 

[wuneyej]

As Dimandja said, it's just another example of people writing words the way they here them.

Another example of this that I see all the time is using "of" instead of "have" or the "*'ve" contraction.

Jane should of studied more before her exam.

 

[Stella740pl]

As Dimandja said, it's just another example of people writing words the way they hear them.

 

[wuneyej]

Ughh!

*smacks himself*

Would you believe me if I said I spelled it that way on purpose?

Didn't think so.

 

[SQLSister]

Well, it did effectively make your point!

Actually I think the reason we see this stuff more and more is because students no longer seem to actually be taught the correct rules of grammar and have those rules enforced in the work they submit for grading. So they rely on what they hear in informal conversation.

Questions about posting. See faq183-874

 

[MakeItSo]

Since suppose used in active voice is a synonym to propose or to precondition, the non-ed version cannot be correct in this context. Here it is used as a synonym for I should/ought/am expected to and must thus be used in passive voice.
But then again: which native speaker actually sticks to grammar?
I certainly don't in my mother tongue...


[blue]The last voice we will hear before the world explodes will be that of an expert saying:
"This is technically impossible!" - Sir Peter Ustinov[/blue]

 

[SQLSister]

In speaking, no one sticks strictly to grammar rules. You are supposed to be grammatically correct in professional and business writing however. Otherwise, it reflects poorly on your company and your own professionalism.

Questions about posting. See faq183-874