Talk:be supposed to

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

I think this presents better at supposed#Adjective. The to is normally considered part of the mandatory following verb. This should probably be a redirect to supposed. We seem to be the only OneLook dictionary with the entry at supposed to. No OneLook dictionary has an entry at "be supposed to" either. DCDuring TALK 20:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

As often as not, no following verb. It’s colloquial and very idiomatic. I think most people do not see it as being related to suppose or supposed. The case is similar to that of used to. We should keep such a common, idiomatic term. —Stephen 14:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

What are the numbers?

I wonder whether it is used more or less often than other expressions that are sometimes truncated by dropping their referent. Do you think the definition given is adequate? Does the entry provide adequate grammatical information and usage notes?

Should we include all terms that drop the referent? DCDuring TALK 15:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think splitting supposed and supposed to is the best solution, maybe using {{also}} at the top of the pages. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Keep. It appears, it is almost synonymous with should. Definitely idiomatic. --Rising Sun 11:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I usually prefer my synonyms to be the, 1., same part of speech or, 2., play the same grammatical roles.

1. What part of speech would "supposed to" be?
2. (deprecated template usage) supposed to is a past participle followed by a particle. It needs to be preceded by a form of "be" and followed by a bare infinitive. The "be" form could be a present, a simple past, or perhaps some other forms. In this sense "should" is followed by the bare infinitive for a present or "have" and a past participle for a past.

Synonymy is, in any event, irrelevant and, still less, near synonymy. "Did go" is a near synonym for "went", but wouldn't be an idiom in my book. DCDuring TALK 20:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

By what objective test is it idiomatic? The Rising-Sun opinion test generates a different result than the DCDuring opinion test. The Other-Lexicographers test says it is not idiomatic, Wiktionary being the only OneLook reference work (including translating dictionaries) to have it.

When we say something is an "idiom" we don't just mean that it is "idiomatic" in the sense that it comes trippingly from the tongue. That would describe any common collocation. DCDuring TALK 13:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I note that ] is currently missing the pronunciation of this usage (with final /-st/ instead of /-zɪd/). Whether this is better addressed by adding that pronunciation there, or by considering supposed to to be an idiom with its own idiomatic pronunciation, I don't know. —Ruakh_TALK 14:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Would a pronunciation difference between "I'm supposed to do this." and "I'm doing what I'm supposed to." count as evidence of "supposed to" being an idiom? I would have thought that an absolutely standard transformation, even if a pronunciation change were to accompany it. For that matter, would the existence of "s'possta" as in "It's one of my s'posstas" be serious rather than suggestive evidence that "supposed to" was an idiom? DCDuring TALK 16:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think we might be miscommunicating. The pronunciation I'm referring to is the de-voicing of "supposed"-'s final consonant cluster in these senses. "I'm supposed to do this" can be used literally, with the passive voice of "suppose", to mean "It's supposed that I do this", in which case the <-sed> is voiced (/-zd/); or, it can be used perhaps-idiomatically, with the expression "supposed to", to mean (e.g.) "I am required to do this", in which case the <-sed> is unvoiced (/-st/), presumably due to anticipatory assimilation from the /t/ of to. You see the same thing, BTW, with used to; cf. "this is what I used to do it" vs. "this is what I used to do". —Ruakh_TALK 17:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have intentionally (?) retained my ignorance of IPA so as to remain one of the imbeciles. Consequently, yes, I missed your point, on which I have nothing to add. Notwithstanding the mis- part of the communication, your question reminded me of stress difference as possible evidence supporting the possible idiomaticity of some usage of "supposed to". Any thoughts on that? DCDuring TALK 17:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, I don't know what stress difference you mean. In some kinds of compounds, shifting stress can be a sign of idiomaticity (a "black bird" is just a bird that's black, a "high school" is just a school on a mountaintop, etc., whereas a "blackbird" can be albino, a "high school" can be in the valley, etc.), but I don't see how that applies to "supposed to". The only pronunciation difference I see between the "supposed to" in "I'm supposed to do it" and that in "I'm supposed to" is that the former can have /tu/ ("too") or /tə/ ("ta"), whereas the latter strongly prefers /tu/ ("too"); but then, I think you'd get the same effect from a vowel ("I'm supposed /tu/ ask him about it") or a pause ("I'm supposed /tu/, what? Lie?"). Right? —Ruakh_TALK 18:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, not only don't I know IPA, I don't listen too well either. I was actually just looking to see if there is any passing for making presenting "supposed to" as an idiom headword in its own right rather than just redirect to supposed. That some contributors want it to be separate is suggestive, but I'd like some Pawleyesque rationales because I don't see it.

Kept --EncycloPetey 18:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply