# Se supone que hay/haya



## NewdestinyX

This one's tricky for me. I know that SE SUPONE QUE is used to express a lot of English's TO BE SUPPOSED/EXPECTED
TO and TO BE TO-- conveying a very light sense of obligation, not as strong as TENER QUE or even DEBER for that matter.

But I see the verbs after it used in both SUBJUNCTIVE and INDICATIVE MOODS. Can anyone help me to _express the
difference in English_ between using the Ind or Subj. 

Example sentences from Google:
_Se supone que *hay* varios tipos de razas entre los..._
_Se supone que *haya* los permisos necesarios...
_
If possible I would like to hear the translations expressed with BE SUPPOSED TO (rather than "it is supposed that"
 which would rarely be used in natural English)

Gracias de antemano,
Grant


----------



## Anakin59

Se supone que hay varios...
this one is used when something is supposed but not certain

Se supone que haya...
in my experience, usually in the negative form: "no se supone que haya". This one could be the negative form of "se supone que hay", as a way to express not certainty of the existence of something, but also to express something that shouldn't be there. "No se supone que haya pelos en la comida"


----------



## termes

_Se supone que *hay* varios tipos de razas entre los... (there are supposed to be many kinds of races between/among ....)
Se supone que *haya* los permisos necesarios... (supposing there are....)_


----------



## NewdestinyX

termes said:


> _Se supone que *hay* varios tipos de razas entre los... (there are supposed to be many kinds of races between/among ....)
> Se supone que *haya* los permisos necesarios... (supposing there are....)_



AH.. Termes -- thank you.. But because HABER for existence is impersonal we got off a little easy with that second translation -- though it's hugely helpful to see how SE SUPONE QUE + SUBJ. throws the whole feel into hypothetical. As I'm reading more examples from Google of this structure is may be that the subjunctive pushes the phrase into the future. I think in this sentence,
*"Se supone que haya*_ alguna especie de conferencia de prensa después de eso._" I think SE SUPONE QUE HAYA is THERE WILL SUPPOSEDLY BE. Is that too much of a stretch? SUPPOSING THERE IS, as you suggested, wouldn't work there. I think in natural English even THERE'S SUPPOSED TO BE, like the indicative example will work it's just that when using the subjunctive in SPanish the next event mentioned is definitely off in the future.

And may I beg one more translation using a verb other than HABER?

What would the natural English be for this one from Google.

Sencillamente no veo cómo *se supone que haga* nuevos amigos sin tener recreos. 

Would the use of HACE there change the English?

Mil gracias de antemano!


----------



## NewdestinyX

Anakin59 said:


> Se supone que hay varios...
> this one is used when something is supposed but not certain
> 
> Se supone que haya...
> in my experience, usually in the negative form: "no se supone que haya". This one could be the negative form of "se supone que hay", as a way to express not certainty of the existence of something, but also to express something that shouldn't be there. "No se supone que haya pelos en la comida"



Thanks - very helpful!


----------



## lazarus1907

NewdestinyX said:


> Example sentences from Google:
> _Se supone que *hay* varios tipos de razas entre los..._
> _Se supone que *haya* los permisos necesarios... _


La segunda me suena muy extraña. Cuando el hablante supone que algo es cierto, se usa el indicativo. Se puede usar en subjuntivo en frases negativas, en formas no personales, para hablar del futuro, etc. Pero para mí la segunda es incorrecta.


----------



## Anakin59

> Sencillamente no veo cómo *se supone que haga* nuevos amigos sin tener recreos.


I just don't see how he is supposed to make new friends without any recesses



> I think in this sentence,
> *"Se supone que haya*_ alguna especie de conferencia de prensa después de eso._" I think SE SUPONE QUE HAYA is THERE WILL SUPPOSEDLY BE.


Correct, and it could also be translated as: There is supposed to be some sort of conference...
This one could also be in Spanish: "se supone que habrá alguna especie de.." without changing much of its sense.

Other examples:
Se supone que usted tenga permiso de conducir para manejar un automóvil. You're supposed to have a...
Se supone que tiene más de un hijo. Supposedly he has more than one son. In this one, the expression has more a color of belief than of uncertainty.
Se supone que tendrá mas de un hijo. This is more like an expectation, where the supposition is held on the basis of what is regular.

Se supone que corra más rápido. Here, he is expected to run faster to achieve whatever he should. It's like a condition he needs to meet before achieving something else.
Se supone que corre más rápido. In this one, it is known that he runs faster, though this time he didn't.
Se supone que correrá más rápido. He is not running that fast today, but he will.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Anakin59 said:


> Other examples:
> Se supone que usted tenga permiso de conducir para manejar un automóvil. You're supposed to have a...
> Se supone que tiene más de un hijo. Supposedly he has more than one son. In this one, the expression has more a color of belief than of uncertainty.
> Se supone que tendrá mas de un hijo. This is more like an expectation, where the supposition is held on the basis of what is regular.
> 
> Se supone que corra más rápido. Here, he is expected to run faster to achieve whatever he should. It's like a condition he needs to meet before achieving something else.
> Se supone que corre más rápido. In this one, it is known that he runs faster, though this time he didn't.
> Se supone que correrá más rápido. He is not running that fast today, but he will.



Wow, thanks Anakin.. What my eyes are opening up to -- is that SE SUPONE QUE is not only English's SUPPOSED/EXPECTED TO -- but it also really is literally IT IS SUPPOSED THAT (more impersonal). I guess there's not easy to translation matrix to make for this one in English. I will keep pondering this and maybe have a few follow up questions. Thanks so much for you time!


----------



## Anakin59

> SE SUPONE QUE is not only English's SUPPOSED/EXPECTED TO -- but it also really is literally IT IS SUPPOSED THAT (more impersonal)


Precisely. I cannot think of a way to translate into Spanish the expression: He is supposed to do something, where "supposed" is directly related to "He". This would be something like: El está supuesto a hacer algo, which DOESN'T EXIST in Spanish and is completely wrong. 
On the other hand, Se supone que el haga algo, (which would be the correct translation for "he is supposed to do something translated word by word would be: It is supposed that he does something.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Anakin59 said:


> Se supone que corra más rápido. Here, he is expected to run faster to achieve whatever he should. It's like a condition he needs to meet before achieving something else.
> Se supone que corre más rápido. In this one, it is known that he runs faster, though this time he didn't.
> Se supone que correrá más rápido. He is not running that fast today, but he will.



Anakin -- one of things I've tried to do with my students and in the grammar I'm writing is to try and reduce a lot of complex structures down to fairly reliable English phraseology that will always be close if not exactly right. In a sense trying to demystify some of the them for Intermediate Students. Though I know it's not going to be a 100% fit would you generally agree with this summation:

SUPPOSED TO for Light OBLIGATION:
He is supposed to clean his room now. = Debe/Debería limpiar su cuarto ahora./Se supone que limpie su cuarto ahora.

SUPPOSED TO for future EXPECTATION (not sure of result):
He is supposed to be at the train station by 6PM tonight. = Se supone que esté en la estación de tren para las 6 esta noche.

TO BE EXPECTED TO/WILL LIKELY for future EXPECTATION (pretty sure of result):
He's expected to/He will likely do well next time. = Se supone que irá genial la próxima vez.

SUPPOSEDLY/SUPPOSED TO for EXPECTATION about a REALITY:
They are supposed to be/They're supposedly great singers. = Se supone que son cantantes maravillosas.

*LISTED SPANISH 1st:
*• SE SUPONE/SUPONÍA QUE + pres/past = BE SUPPOSED TO/BE SUPPOSEDLY (from what one's heard)
• SE SUPONE QUE + pres subjunctive = BE SUPPOSED TO (future expectation - unsure of result) + (light obligation)
• SE SUPONE QUE + future = BE EXPECTED TO/WILL LIKELY (future expectation - pretty sure of result)

That's my first pass.. Anything look strange or way off?

Thanks!


----------



## NewdestinyX

Anakin59 said:


> Precisely. I cannot think of a way to translate into Spanish the expression: He is supposed to do something, where "supposed" is directly related to "He". This would be something like: El está supuesto a hacer algo, which DOESN'T EXIST in Spanish and is completely wrong.
> On the other hand, Se supone que el haga algo, (which would be the correct translation for "he is supposed to do something translated word by word would be: It is supposed that he does something.



AHA!! DING! DING! DING!! Something just hit me.. THAT'S how you do LIGHT "deber-like" obligation with SE SUPONE QUE -- in that case PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE would indeed be needed -- because it is like an indirect command -- but from an impersonal subject.. The impersonal subject is demanding something of the actual subject therefore subjunctive... OF COURSE.  Now I have to modify the list I just gave you of my summation..

Thanks -- you're really helping me to grasp this. Wait until I ask you about the past... The translations to English get even trickier..

Thanks again!


----------



## Anakin59

> SE SUPONE/SUPONÍA QUE + pres/past = BE SUPPOSED TO/BE SUPPOSEDLY (from what one's heard)


You got it, except for this one. If you use the past tense, it implies disappointment. The guy was expected to do something, but he didn't. 
Se suponía que iba a llegar a las nueve. He was supposed to be here at nine. 
Now that I used the expression "expected to", it seems to me it works pretty much like supposed, meaning that in Spanish it is impersonal as well. "se espera de él" and not "el es esperado", because this one would mean that he is expected to arrive, meaning you're waiting for him.

By the way, I wouldn't say "Se supone que irá genial la próxima vez". If you're willing to say "he will do great" you should say "que *le* irá genial (or muy bien) la próxima vez.



> SUPPOSEDLY/SUPPOSED TO for EXPECTATION about a REALITY:
> They are supposed to be/They're supposedly great singers. = Se supone que son cantantes maravillosas.


You could also say: supuestamente son cantantes maravillosas. These two imply, in a way, that they didn't act accordingly to what they are or were expected to be, or to what it's been done or was expected to have been done.


----------



## gramatica

Hola:

Se supone que corra más rápido.=*necesita correr mas rapido*
Se supone que corre más rápido. *Es lo mismo que "Debe/deberia/ha de/tiene que correr mas rapido"=He's supposed to run faster/He should run faster*
Se supone que correrá más rápido=*Se supone que corre mas rapido*

*Usualmente no se usa esta estructura en espanol, verdad? Normalmente se diria "Debes/deberias/ha de+verbo/tienes que..., no?*

*Gracias de antemano*


----------



## NewdestinyX

> Quote:
> SUPPOSEDLY/SUPPOSED TO for EXPECTATION about a REALITY:
> They are supposed to be/They're supposedly great singers. = Se supone que son cantantes maravillosas.





Anakin59 said:


> You could also say: supuestamente son cantantes maravillosas. These two imply, in a way, that they didn't act accordingly to what they are or were expected to be, or to what it's been done or was expected to have been done.



Yep -- it's the same in English. So there wouldn't be an ambiguity in coming from Spanish to English on those.. Thanks for confirming it for me.

Grant


----------



## Anakin59

> Se supone que corra más rápido.=*necesita correr mas rapido*


OK


> Se supone que corre más rápido. *Es lo mismo que "Debe/deberia/ha de/tiene que correr mas rapido"=He's supposed to run faster/He should run faster*


No, no es lo mismo. La traducción al inglés sería más parecido a: "He is supposed to *be* faster" rather than "to *run* faster" porque "corre" implica extensión en el tiempo; es decir "siempre" corre más rápido; en cambio, se supone que corra más rápido, es algo que tenía que hacer hoy.


> Se supone que correrá más rápido=*Se supone que corre mas rapido*


 Más bien "se espera" que correrá más rápido.


> Usualmente no se usa esta estructura en espanol, verdad? Normalmente se diria "Debes/deberias/ha de+verbo/tienes que..., no?


Yo diría que la que no se usa mucho es la de "se supone que corra más rápido"; las otras dos son más comunes, pero siempre depende del país, o incluso en mi país depende de la región.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Anakin59 said:


> OK
> 
> No, no es lo mismo. La traducción al inglés sería más parecido a: "He is supposed to *be* faster" rather than "to *run* faster" porque "corre" implica extensión en el tiempo; es decir "siempre" corre más rápido;



Anakin -- tell me if a similarity exists between this and another syntax when teaching it--

I was taught that the difference between ESTUVIERON DAÑADOS and ESTABAN DAÑADOS is that, with ESTUVIERON, the implication is that they're NO LONGER damaged. They once WERE and now they're fixed. So I teach my students to think -- AND NOT ANYMORE with ESTUVIERON there.. 

In a similar way I wonder if with SE SUPONE QUE + indicative present -- it would be accurate to add. "...(but they're/he's/she's NOT)".. Basically USUALLY they DO run faster -- but today they're NOT. Or in my CANTANTES example -- SE SUPONE QUE SON CANTANTES MARAVILLOSOS (THey're supposed to be good singers -- but they're not in my experience at this moment)

Is that it?

Is it then safe to conclude that the SE SUPONE QUE + PRES SUBJ is always implying light obligation as the other poster said?


----------



## NewdestinyX

gramatica said:


> Hola:
> 
> *Usualmente no se usa esta estructura en espanol, verdad? Normalmente se diria "Debes/deberias/ha de+verbo/tienes que..., no?*
> 
> *Gracias de antemano*



?????? SE SUPONE QUE is one of the most common expression in the Spanish language. Where did you get the idea that it's not used that much? Or am I misunderstanding you?


----------



## Anakin59

> Is it then safe to conclude that the SE SUPONE QUE + PRES SUBJ is always implying light obligation as the other poster said?


In my understanding, yes; it's correct. 



> In a similar way I wonder if with SE SUPONE QUE + indicative present -- it would be accurate to add. "...(but they're/he's/she's NOT)".. Basically USUALLY they DO run faster -- but today they're NOT. Or in my CANTANTES example -- SE SUPONE QUE SON CANTANTES MARAVILLOSOS (THey're supposed to be good singers -- but they're not in my experience at this moment)


You can add the conclusion to the sentence if you want, as a way to teach the concept that's conveyed through "se supone + presente del indicativo", but it is really not necessary to say it when you are engaged in a real conversation. As we say here "se cae de maduro", meaning, it's obvious what you imply.



> I was taught that the difference between ESTUVIERON DAÑADOS and ESTABAN DAÑADOS is that, with ESTUVIERON, the implication is that they're NO LONGER damaged. They once WERE and now they're fixed. So I teach my students to think -- AND NOT ANYMORE with ESTUVIERON there


This one's true as long as the verb is "estar", but if you say "fueron dañados" what would be passive voice, it doesn't mean they are no longer damaged. In another example, if you say: Quisieron comer una manzana, it would suggest they didn't finally eat it, but it doesn't mean they aren't still hungry. On the other hand, you could say, quisieron comer una manzana en cuanto llegaron a casa, y por supuesto que yo se las di. So they did eat their apple after all.


----------



## Anakin59

Newdestiny,
You might be interested in taking a look at this page. I'm not sure. May be it is too basic for you, but it can always help. 
http://www.escuelai.com/gramatica/cursos-en-internet.html


----------



## amarillo33

Anakin59 said:


> Se suponía que iba a llegar a las nueve. He was supposed to be here at nine.


To me this looks like it could mean in other words, "Supposedly he was going to be here at nine," with the underlying idea being that he did not arrive, or at least not at that time.  If he had arrived at nine, we simply could say so: "Llegó a las nueve."  Do I have the right idea?  

Could a similar idea be expressed with, "Se suponía que llegara a las nueve"?  I am guessing that it is not exactly the same: this sentence seems to carry more obligation than expecation.



> You could also say: supuestamente son cantantes maravillosas. These two imply, in a way, that they didn't act accordingly to what they are or were expected to be, or to what it's been done or was expected to have been done.


What if I have not attended the concert yet and am telling someone why I want to go? Can I still say, "Supuestamente son cantantes maravillosas"?


----------



## Anakin59

> To me this looks like it could mean in other words, "Supposedly he was going to be here at nine," with the underlying idea being that he did not arrive, or at least not at that time. If he had arrived at nine, we simply could say so: "Llegó a las nueve." Do I have the right idea?


Yes.


> Could a similar idea be expressed with, "Se suponía que llegara a las nueve"? I am guessing that it is not exactly the same: this sentence seems to carry more obligation than expecation.


They sound pretty much the same to me. I think that, in terms of language excellence, this one could be better, though it's less used, at least in my country. I don't see much difference in their meaning though.


> What if I have not attended the concert yet and am telling someone why I want to go? Can I still say, "Supuestamente son cantantes maravillosas"?


Of course. When I said "they didn't act accordingly to what they are", it was in the context of the example written by newdestiny, where the sentence ended with: "but they're not in my experience at this moment" I gave this example before:


> Se supone que tiene más de un hijo. Supposedly he has more than one son. In this one, the expression has more a color of belief than of uncertainty.


----------



## gramatica

Muchas gracias

Usualmente "to be supposed to" se traduce como "deber" no?

Por ejemplo, 

"How long is the report supposed to be?" es como Cuan largo debe ser el reportaje? o Cuando largo se supone que es el reportaje? Y son iguales, verdad?

Y "what am I supposed to do?" seria Que debo/deberia hacer?/Que se supone que hago? verdad?

Gracias


----------



## gramatica

_Hola:_

_Se supone que *hay* varios tipos de razas entre los...=There are supposed to be a several types of races betwenn the.....
__Se supone que *haya* los permisos necesarios...=It's supposed/One supposes=guesses that there *may* be necessary permits....._

_La segunda no se usa con tanta frecuencia y el hablante no es tan seguro de lo que dice *sea* verdad, no? Y la primera es como decir "Debe/Deberia haber varios tipos de razas entre los....," verdad?

Gracias 

P.D. 
En este caso diria yo "sea" no?

_


----------



## Anakin59

gramatica said:


> "How long is the report supposed to be?" es como Cuan largo debe ser el reportaje? o Cuando largo se supone que es el reportaje? Y son iguales, verdad?


Hmmm. Me parece que se parece más a: "Cuan largo debería ser" (que tendría su equivalente en "how long should it be" o "cuan largo se supone que sea"



> Y "what am I supposed to do?" seria Que debo/deberia hacer?/*Que se supone que hago?*


Qué se supone que hag*a

*


> _Se supone que *hay* varios tipos de razas entre los...=There are supposed to be a several types of races betwenn the.....
> __Se supone que *haya* los permisos necesarios...=It's supposed/One supposes=guesses that there *may* be necessary permits....._
> 
> _La segunda no se usa con tanta frecuencia y el hablante no es tan seguro de lo que dice *sea* verdad, no? Y la primera es como decir "Debe/Deberia haber varios tipos de razas entre los....," verdad?_


Gramatica, fijate que la respuesta de esto está en el #2 y #7 de esta tira.


> En este caso diria yo "sea" no?


si.


----------



## lazarus1907

Anakin59 said:


> Qué se supone que hag*a*


Esto puede ser una diferencia entre el castellano de Argentina y el de otros países, porque en España es más normal decir "hace" que "haga". Según la gramática de la RAE, _cuando cuando están localizados en tiempo presente o pasado (con un verbo en presente en sentido recto, no con valor de futuro) son equiparables a los verbos de conocimiento, de manera que la verdad de la proposición a ellos subordinada, aun restringida al mundo creado, es atribuida al sujeto del predicado superior. Por tanto. en esta oración subordinada se utiliza el indicativo_.

Yo habría dicho "¿Qué se supone que debo hacer?


----------



## gramatica

Muchas gracias 

saludos


----------



## NewdestinyX

Anakin59 said:


> In my understanding, yes; it's correct.
> 
> 
> You can add the conclusion to the sentence if you want, as a way to teach the concept that's conveyed through "se supone + presente del indicativo", but it is really not necessary to say it when you are engaged in a real conversation. As we say here "se cae de maduro", meaning, it's obvious what you imply.
> 
> 
> This one's true as long as the verb is "estar", but if you say "fueron dañados" what would be passive voice, it doesn't mean they are no longer damaged. In another example, if you say: Quisieron comer una manzana, it would suggest they didn't finally eat it, but it doesn't mean they aren't still hungry. On the other hand, you could say, quisieron comer una manzana en cuanto llegaron a casa, y por supuesto que yo se las di. So they did eat their apple after all.



Thanks Anakin... I agree with all your thoughts there.. and I was thinking of those things only in the context of teaching to students. But thanks for your assurance. VERY HELPFUL!!


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> This one's tricky for me. I know that SE SUPONE QUE is used to express a lot of English's TO BE SUPPOSED/EXPECTED
> TO and TO BE TO-- conveying a very light sense of obligation, not as strong as TENER QUE or even DEBER for that matter.
> 
> But I see the verbs after it used in both SUBJUNCTIVE and INDICATIVE MOODS. Can anyone help me to _express the_
> _difference in English_ between using the Ind or Subj.
> 
> Example sentences from Google:
> _Se supone que *hay* varios tipos de razas entre los..._
> _Se supone que *haya* los permisos necesarios..._
> 
> If possible I would like to hear the translations expressed with BE SUPPOSED TO (rather than "it is supposed that"
> which would rarely be used in natural English)
> 
> Gracias de antemano,
> Grant


 
*Tienes una CONFUSIÓN al no saber los diferentes significados de SUPONER, y de acuerdo a cada significado será la traducción al inglés*

Para comprender *al verbo SUPONER* del grupo 1 de verbos de entendimiento, actividad mental y de sentido o percepción física. Hay que leer a María Angeles Sastre 'Subjuntivo en español'
El verbo *suponer* exige subjuntivo o INDICATIVO de acuerdo a sus varios significados, y por lo mismo su traducción al inglés será diferente de acuerdo a sus varios significados y al modo indicativo y subjuntivo.

Ivy29



Anakin59 said:


> Precisely. I cannot think of a way to translate into Spanish the expression: He is supposed to do something, where "supposed" is directly related to "He". This would be something like: El está supuesto a hacer algo, which DOESN'T EXIST in Spanish and is completely wrong.
> On the other hand, Se supone que el haga algo, (which would be the correct translation for "he is supposed to do something translated word by word would be: It is supposed that he does something.


 

In English : *be supposed to* is close in meaning to 'should'.

Be to is close in meaning to must.
BE TO is stronger than be supposed to.

Ivy29



Anakin59 said:


> In my understanding, yes; it's correct.
> 
> 
> You can add the conclusion to the sentence if you want, as a way to teach the concept that's conveyed through "se supone + presente del indicativo", but it is really not necessary to say it when you are engaged in a real conversation. As we say here "se cae de maduro", meaning, it's obvious what you imply.
> 
> 
> This one's true as long as the verb is "estar", but if you say "fueron dañados" what would be passive voice, it doesn't mean they are no longer damaged. In another example, if you say: Quisieron comer una manzana, it would suggest they didn't finally eat it, but it doesn't mean they aren't still hungry. On the other hand, you could say, quisieron comer una manzana en cuanto llegaron a casa, y por supuesto que yo se las di. So they did eat their apple after all.


 
Lo siento la interpretación de esa oración no es correcta: 
Querían comerse una manzana en cuanto llegaran a casa.
Se comieron una manzana apenas llegaron a casa ( acción más o menos simultánea)
Quisieron comerse una manzana en cuanto llegaron a casa ( la acción no sucedió).

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

*In keeping with forum guidelines -- a discussion of QUERER in the preterite is off topic for this thread. I broke out the essential conversation into a thread of its own. Let's pursue that important topic in the new thread I started, please.

And let's keep this one on SE SUPONE QUE..

Thanks,
Grant*


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> In English : *be supposed to* is close in meaning to 'should'.
> 
> Be to is close in meaning to must.
> BE TO is stronger than be supposed to.
> 
> Ivy29



I agree that BE SUPPOSED TO is close in meaning to SHOULD. BUT-------Ivy29's second statement is NOT accurate. TO BE TO can VERY RARELY be stronger than BE SUPPOSED TO/MUST but, in the VAST MAJORITY of cases, is much weaker than BE SUPPOSED TO. (see American Heritage Book of English Usage™)

Example:
"The president _is to_ arrive in Washington this morning."

There is ZERO obligation or duty expressed in that sentence. It is nothing more than a mild _expectation_ based upon data received. TO BE TO rarely carries any weight of obligation; so as a native speaker I would have to reject the idea that it's commonly close to MUST. 

It can be, in a sentence like:

"Tell John he is to be in the principal's office first thing in the morning" --- there is indeed obligation there. But note the command form starting the sentence. Without that command -- only a strong tone of voice would carry the obligation sense.

So for all all practical purposes a Spanish speaker should think of TO BE TO much closer to mild expectation as in:
• SE SUPONE QUE + FUTURO SIMPLE-- "Se supone que el presidente llegará a Washington esta mañana.
--or in using
• the FUTURE of CONJECTURE-- "El presidente llegará a Washington esta mañana." (de lo que se me ha dicho)
•


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> I agree that BE SUPPOSED TO is close in meaning to SHOULD. BUT-------Ivy29's second statement is NOT accurate. TO BE TO can VERY RARELY be stronger than BE SUPPOSED TO/MUST but, in the VAST MAJORITY of cases, is much weaker than BE SUPPOSED TO. (see American Heritage Book of English Usage™)
> 
> Example:
> "The president _is to_ arrive in Washington this morning."
> 
> There is ZERO obligation or duty expressed in that sentence. It is nothing more than a mild _expectation_ based upon data received. TO BE TO rarely carries any weight of obligation; so as a native speaker I would have to reject the idea that it's commonly close to MUST.
> 
> It can be, in a sentence like:
> 
> "Tell John he is to be in the principal's office first thing in the morning" --- there is indeed obligation there. But note the command form starting the sentence. Without that command -- only a strong tone of voice would carry the obligation sense.
> 
> So for all all practical purposes a Spanish speaker should think of TO BE TO much closer to mild expectation as in:
> • SE SUPONE QUE + FUTURO SIMPLE-- "Se supone que el presidente llegará en (a) Washington esta mañana.
> --or in using
> • the FUTURE of CONJECTURE-- "El presidente llegará en (a ) Washington esta mañana." (de lo que se me ha dicho)
> •


 
Then YOU have to write Betty Azar's grammar book (page 83, diagram 2-10), because I took it from her book.
<<<<1- *Be supposed to and Be to*, also express expectations about behaviour; often they give the idea that someone expects a particular person to do something.
2- *Be supposed to* is close in meaning to *should, but be supposed to gives the idea that someone else expects ( request OR REQUIRE ) THIS behavior.*
*3- Be to is close in meaning to must, but be to, includes the idea that someone else strongly expects (demands or requires) this behavior.*
*4- BE TO is used to state strong expectations, rules, laws, instructions, demands, orders).*
*5- BE TO is stronger, more definite, than be supposed to.>>>>*

*It seems that you should read Azar's grammar book.*

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> Then YOU have to write Betty Azar's grammar book, because I took it from her book.
> 
> Ivy29



It's possible you need to update your English Grammar books. Though my explanations were from American Heritage English Usage and other books.

Truthfully. TO BE TO may have had roots, earlier, in more obligation but as you see it used today it is really much more EXPECTATION/CONJECTURE. Now that would be so in America. I believe Betty Azar is British. Correct? I can't speak to the British Usage and my grammars are American based.

As always thanks for your corrections to my Spanish.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> It's possible you need to update your English Grammar books. Though my explanations were from American Heritage English Usage and other books.
> 
> Truthfully. TO BE TO may have had roots, earlier, in more obligation but as you see it used today it is really much more EXPECTATION/CONJECTURE. Now that would be so in America. I believe Betty Azar is British. Correct? I can't speak to the British Usage and my grammars are American based.
> 
> As always thanks for your corrections to my Spanish.


 
Mrs Betty Azar lives in Langley, Washington, USA. Reading is good to keep a FRESH language going on. I have her latest grammar book. My books are up to date.
Then YOU have to write Betty Azar's grammar book (page 83, diagram 2-10), because I took it from her book.
<<<<1- *Be supposed to and Be to*, also express expectations about behaviour; often they give the idea that someone expects a particular person to do something.
2- *Be supposed to* is close in meaning to *should, but be supposed to gives the idea that someone else expects ( request OR REQUIRE ) THIS behavior.*
*3- Be to is close in meaning to must, but be to, includes the idea that someone else strongly expects (demands or requires) this behavior.*
*4- BE TO is used to state strong expectations, rules, laws, instructions, demands, orders).*
*5- BE TO is stronger, more definite, than be supposed to.>>>>*

*It seems that you should read Azar's grammar book.*


Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> Mrs Betty Azar lives in Langley, Washington, USA. Reading is good to keep a FRESH language going on. I have her latest grammar book. My books are up to date.
> Then YOU have to write Betty Azar's grammar book (page 83, diagram 2-10), because I took it from her book.
> <<<<1- *Be supposed to and Be to*, also express expectations about behaviour; often they give the idea that someone expects a particular person to do something.
> 2- *Be supposed to* is close in meaning to *should, but be supposed to gives the idea that someone else expects ( request OR REQUIRE ) THIS behavior.*
> *3- Be to is close in meaning to must, but be to, includes the idea that someone else strongly expects (demands or requires) this behavior.*
> *4- BE TO is used to state strong expectations, rules, laws, instructions, demands, orders).*
> *5- BE TO is stronger, more definite, than be supposed to.>>>>*
> 
> *It seems that you should read Azar's grammar book.*
> 
> 
> Ivy29



Azar's paragraph there explains perfectly what I explained in my last post. Everything she says CAN BE the case. Your errors, Ivy29, are in your ability to sort out the 'archaic' from 'the common'. Here explanation #1 supports perfectly my input to the forum in my last post.

<<1- *Be supposed to and Be to*, also express expectations about behaviour; often they give the idea that someone expects a particular person to do something.>>

This is the #1 most common way Modern English uses BE TO. -- expectation. The other things she she states are less common and therefore further down her list of possible usages. When a grammarian sets out to explain a usage -- their attempt is to explain the various ways something COULD BE SEEN and USED. It is NEVER 'exhaustive' -- ever. You believe that these grammarians explain ALL usage. This is NOT the case. And they usually list the most common usages first. You did NOT even list her FIRST entry in your original post -- but rather chose to combat my input to the forum with 'secondary' definitions. Why do you do that? Do you think that helps anyone? If you have nothing further to offer about my question in this thread -- i need NO more input about my English from you. And it's off topic in this thread. Do I have to report your violation to the moderators here? This forum likes to keep order.

Follow the guidelines.


----------

