# I was supposed to (meant to)...



## Masood

Hola

¿Cómo se diría la frase a continuación en español?

*I was supposed to be back at work on Friday, but I took the day off.*

Qué tal: _Se suponía volver al trabajo el viernes, pero tomé [tomaba?] el día libre._

Gracias de antemano.


----------



## Juana Brienza

Se suponía que volvería al trabajo el viernes, pero tomé el día libre.


----------



## Masood

Juana Brienza said:


> Se suponía que volvería al trabajo el viernes, pero tomé el día libre.


Thanks. 
Why have you used the conditional _volvería _(i.e. I would go back/return)?


----------



## blasita

Hola.

Otra, p.ej:  _Se suponía que iba a estar de vuelta en el/que iba a volver al  trabajo el viernes, pero me tomé/cogí el día libre.

_Porque aquí 'be supposed to' no es en el sentido de 'tener que', ¿no?

Saludos.


----------



## Juana Brienza

Se suponía que "iba a volver" ( going to)=  "volvería" 
Puedo decir también por ejemplo
Creía que iba a ir ( o que "iría") pero me quedé trabajando.
O "Dije que volvería a casa, pero me quedé trabajando.
Si no quieres usar la condicional ( aun que es muy común esa correlación)  puedes usar " Se suponía que iba a volver a trabajar pero....

Modo condicional El modo condicional se utiliza para expresar incertidumbre, particularmente (pero no exclusivamente) en oraciones condicionales.
Si yo comiera más, estaría muy gordo. (no es probable que coma más)​El modo condicional, en ocasiones, se considera un tiempo en lugar de un modo.


----------



## Juana Brienza

Acordamos Blasita " iba a volver o iba a estar de vuelta".Aunque la construccion con condicional es muy común. A mí me gusta y me parece más corriente lo de " me" tomé, pero no sabía si para españa funcionaba igual.


----------



## blasita

Sí, ambas son correctas en mi opinión, Juana. Y sí, yo diría de manera natural 'me' (aunque no sea estrictamente necesario).

Un saludo.


----------



## Masood

Thank you both. Sigo sin entender porqué se puede usar el condicional, pero estoy seguro que estaís en lo cierto.

Does "Se suponía que" mean "I was supposed to..." or "It was supposed that..."?


----------



## blasita

Masood said:


> Thank you both. Sigo sin entender por *qué* se puede usar el condicional, pero estoy seguro que est*ái*s en lo cierto. *Sí, así lo creo.*
> Does "Se suponía que" mean "I was supposed to..." or "It was supposed that..."?



Masood, el problema es que tú lo habías traducido como 'Se suponía volver ...', y aquí no está expresado el sujeto 'yo'; no tiene ningún sentido (=¿quién/qué se suponía que iba a volver?).

Un saludo.


----------



## sound shift

I would say "tendría que haber vuelto al trabajo" because this "supposed to have" is not about a supposition but about an instruction: I was meant (required) to return to work. The Collins Spanish Dictionary agrees with my suggestion.  D)


----------



## blasita

Thank you, Sound Shift. Actually, I asked about it (meaning: 'tener que: have to work'). However, I think that all options given are all right; also:  '... que tenía que estar de vuelta/volver/haber vuelto ...'. Now, personally I'm not sure which the most literal translation is.

Cheers.


----------



## Masood

I fully understand why the imperfect tense is used (e.g. _iba a volver_), but I still don't understand about the use of the conditional. Maybe it's a use of the conditional I'm not familiar with.

To confirm what _sound shift _has said, "I was supposed to..." means "I was meant to", i.e. I had planned to, I had agreed to, etc.


----------



## Masood

sound shift said:


> I would say "*tendría que haber vuelto al trabajo*" because this "supposed to have" is not about a supposition but about an instruction: I was meant (required) to return to work. The Collins Spanish Dictionary agrees with my suggestion.  D)


Hi
What does this actually mean? Is it "I'd have to have returned to work"?


----------



## sound shift

Afternoon.

No, it means "I should have gone back to work" or, presumably, "I was supposed to go back to work", since the Collins Dictionary gives "Tendría que haber llamado esta mañana" for "He was supposed to telephone this morning."


----------



## blasita

Masood said:


> I fully understand why the imperfect tense is used (e.g. _iba a volver_), but I still don't understand about the use of the conditional.



Creo que se trata de un condicional de conjetura (aunque quizá este no sea el nombre adecuado aquí, que lo confirmen por favor), que se refiere al pasado. Desde luego, el verbo 'suponer' admite esta clase de construcción (acepta condicionales de conjetura subordinados).


----------



## Masood

sound shift said:


> Afternoon.
> 
> No, *it means "I should have gone back to work" *or, presumably, "I was supposed to go back to work", since the Collins Dictionary gives "Tendría que haber llamado esta mañana" for "He was supposed to telephone this morning."


Really? I would've said "Debería haber vuelto al trabajo" for "I should have gone back to work".
I'm still unclear about the use of the conditional (_volvería_) in the translation of my original sentence. I trust it's right, so I think I'll just accept it for now.


----------



## SevenDays

Masood said:


> Really? I would've said "Debería haber vuelto al trabajo" for "I should have gone back to work".
> I'm still unclear about the use of the conditional (_volvería_) in the translation of my original sentence. I trust it's right, so I think I'll just accept it for now.



Dicho de otra manera: The conditional is also used to express a *future in the past*; in this case, the past (the starting point of the_ future_ in the past) is set by* suponía: *_Se suponía que volvería el viernes, pero me tomé el día libre_. "Tomé" (and not "tomaba") because the decision was taken; it's final; it's "perfect" in nature. The conditional suggests a condition; if the condition (of your return to work) is not expressed or implied by context (maybe your boss told you so, maybe your vacation ended that day, etc.), you may use other constructions: _Se suponía que iba a estar de vuelta el viernes, pero me tomé el dí libre. _Now, the overall sense, I think, takes you closer to _conjecture_ (as blasita said) rather than_ conditionality_, although the idea of condition (for your return) is not altogether gone.
Hope this makes sense.


----------



## Juana Brienza

. Tenía pensado volver al trabajo el viernes pero...
. Tendría que haber vuelto al trabajo el viernes pero...
. Se suponía que volvería al trabajo el viernes pero... ( o "que iba a estar de vuelta en el trabajo pero..") 
En Agentina es muy coloquial " se suponía" como en el ejemplo que dan de " tendría que haber llamado esta mañana ". Solemos decir a un amigo "Se suponía que me ( llamarías o  que me ibas a llamar").  
. Iba a volver al trabajo el viernes pero...
Todas son correctas. Ojalá te sirva lo que te mandé sobre usos del condicional para que veas que no siempre se trata de la "modalidad" condicional sino que esa modalidad puede funcionar en distintos " tiempos" verbales.


----------



## blasita

Yes, I just mentioned it, but I think your explanation is really good, SevenDays. Well done.

Espero que entre todos hayamos podido aclarar tus dudas Masood, ¿está más claro ahora?


----------



## inib

Masood said:


> Hi
> What does this actually mean? Is it "I'd have to have returned to work"?


I think there is a note of obligation implied, so I'm happy with "tendría que" or "tenía que". Masood, you ask why the conditional...you are right "tendría que haber vuelto" would be translated word-by-word as "I would have to have returned" but modals can't be translated literally, because some of them are defective in English and certain forms just don't exist, so we look for equivalents._ Debería _logically should be "I would must", but as this doesn't exist in English, we substitute it for "I would have to/I should/I ought to", depending on the context and style. You probably know all this.
I got waylaid, and still haven't explained why the conditional is a possibility. I'll try again. _I was supposed to_ can't be translated directly into Spanish and we have to start with an equivalent (se suponía que) to "It was supposed that...".
_It was supposed that I would return/I would have to return/I would have the obligation of returning_ becomes more logical now, doesn't it?


----------



## Masood

inib said:


> I think there is a note of obligation implied, so I'm happy with "tendría que" or "tenía que". Masood, you ask why the conditional...you are right "tendría que haber vuelto" would be translated word-by-word as "I would have to have returned" but modals can't be translated literally, because some of them are defective in English and certain forms just don't exist, so we look for equivalents._ Debería _logically should be "I would must", but as this doesn't exist in English, we substitute it for "I would have to/I should/I ought to", depending on the context and style. You probably know all this.
> I got waylaid, and still haven't explained why the conditional is a possibility. I'll try again. _I was supposed to_ can't be translated directly into Spanish and we have to start with an equivalent (se suponía que) to "*It was supposed that*...".
> _*It was supposed that* I would return/I would have to return/I would have the obligation of returning_ becomes more logical now, doesn't it?


Bingo! This is what I asked in Post#8, but I didn't get an answer.
It makes perfect sense when you think of it this way.

Thanks to one and all. Cheers.


----------



## SevenDays

Masood said:


> Thank you both. Sigo sin entender porqué se puede usar el condicional, pero estoy seguro que estaís en lo cierto.
> 
> Does "Se suponía que" mean "I was supposed to..." or "It was supposed that..."?



Hello
Do you see a difference between _*I was supposed to*_ and _*It was supposed that*_ which might lead you to believe that "se suponía" means one or the other? 
This is really an aside, because you've finally gotten the answer you were looking for (good job, inib). But, you mentioned post #8, and I confess this particular post didn't quite register on me before. It's not stated who's done the "supposing," so I, and I think most Spanish natives, would naturally choose "se suponía." You've peaked my interest. Is there an English nuance between "I was supposed to" and "it was supposed to" that might make you (or inib) think of something other than "se suponía" in Spanish? Good thread.
Cheers


----------



## inib

SevenDays said:


> Hello
> Do you see a difference between _*I was supposed to*_ and _*It was supposed that*_ which might lead you to believe that "se suponía" means one or the other?
> This is really an aside, because you've finally gotten the answer you were looking for (good job, inib). But, you mentioned post #8, and I confess this particular post didn't quite register on me before. It's not stated who's done the "supposing," so I, and I think most Spanish natives, would naturally choose "se suponía." You've peaked my interest. Is there an English nuance between "I was supposed to" and "it was supposed to" that might make you (or inib) think of something other than "se suponía" in Spanish? Good thread.
> Cheers


Sevendays, it's not really a normal, everyday English construction to say that "It was supposed that", but if you start off that way, it will help you find a structure more comparable to the Spanish. I know that neither my Spanish nor my English have been very natural on this thread, but I was just looking for comparisons, which (aunque odiosas), may have helped an English-thinking mind. 
I know that I had to look for these basics when I first started studying languages, and when I was told that in indirect speech (in Latin) I  had to say the equivalent of "he said himself to like artichokes" instead of "he said he liked artichokes", I thought it was strange, but I could see the logic. That's what I was trying to explain to Masood.


----------



## trevorb

SevenDays, yes there is a difference between 'I was supposed to' and 'It was supposed that', and the natural reading of 'se suponía' for an English speaker (at least for me and, it seems, for Masood) is the latter.

'I was supposed to' implies that I agreed to an obligation (which I didn't fulfill), while 'It was supposed that' means that someone else made an assumption about an outcome. Googling 'It was supposed that' gives reasonable examples. It's fairly formal, and may even sound a little archaic. This is from http://www.shetlandarts.org/venues/bonhoga-gallery/:

Upon examination it was discovered the he had perished in the incident. *It was supposed* that Mr Lundie’s jacket had accidentally become entangled in the wheel while he was performing a task in the vicinity.

i.e. that Mr. Lundie's jacket had become entangled in the wheel was no more than a guess.​
I hope that makes some sense and is of some use to you!

Regards,

Trevor.


----------



## Lavernock

Se suponía que tenía que volver al trabajo ...


----------



## SevenDays

inib said:


> Sevendays, it's not really a normal, everyday English construction to say that "It was supposed that", but if you start off that way, it will help you find a structure more comparable to the Spanish. I know that neither my Spanish nor my English have been very natural on this thread, but I was just looking for comparisons, which (aunque odiosas), may have helped an English-thinking mind.
> I know that I had to look for these basics when I first started studying languages, and when I was told that in indirect speech (in Latin) I had to say the equivalent of "he said himself to like artichokes" instead of "he said he liked artichokes", I thought it was strange, but I could see the logic. That's what I was trying to explain to Masood.





trevorb said:


> SevenDays, yes there is a difference between 'I was supposed to' and 'It was supposed that', and the natural reading of 'se suponía' for an English speaker (at least for me and, it seems, for Masood) is the latter.
> 
> 'I was supposed to' implies that I agreed to an obligation (which I didn't fulfill), while 'It was supposed that' means that someone else made an assumption about an outcome. Googling 'It was supposed that' gives reasonable examples. It's fairly formal, and may even sound a little archaic. This is from http://www.shetlandarts.org/venues/bonhoga-gallery/:
> Upon examination it was discovered the he had perished in the incident. *It was supposed* that Mr Lundie’s jacket had accidentally become entangled in the wheel while he was performing a task in the vicinity.
> 
> i.e. that Mr. Lundie's jacket had become entangled in the wheel was no more than a guess.​
> I hope that makes some sense and is of some use to you!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Trevor.



Excellent!
Thanks inib, trevor

Cheers


----------



## Masood

SevenDays said:


> Hello
> Do you see a difference between _*I was supposed to*_ and _*It was supposed that*_ which might lead you to believe that "se suponía" means one or the other?
> This is really an aside, because you've finally gotten the answer you were looking for (good job, inib). But, you mentioned post #8, and I confess this particular post didn't quite register on me before. It's not stated who's done the "supposing," so I, and I think most Spanish natives, would naturally choose "se suponía." You've peaked my interest. Is there an English nuance between "I was supposed to" and "it was supposed to" that might make you (or inib) think of something other than "se suponía" in Spanish? Good thread.
> Cheers


Hi

For me, it's much easier to think of "Se suponía que" as "It was supposed that", if the Spanish expression is followed by the conditional (_volvería_, in this case). As _trevorb _has said, "It was supposed that" sounds old-fashioned, archaic (perhaps) and rather formal as it fits the pattern of the passive voice construct ('be'(was, etc)+past participle).


----------



## SevenDays

Masood said:


> Hi
> 
> For me, it's much easier to think of "Se suponía que" as "It was supposed that", if the Spanish expression is followed by the conditional (_volvería_, in this case). As _trevorb _has said, "It was supposed that" sounds old-fashioned, archaic (perhaps) and rather formal as it fits the pattern of the passive voice construct ('be'(was, etc)+past participle).



Thanks, it's interesting to see how things look from the English side. Very illuminating what you, inib and trevor said.
Cheers


----------

