1

I was confused by usage of be supposed to and ought to modals. Where can we use them? For instance, I am supposed to/ought to learn English today. I don't have to learn english today, but to me it would be very useful if I learned English today because I could improme my skill. I suspuect that ought to is more suitable here, isn't it?

Another example, I ought to/am supposed to meet my friend in the railway station today. Here is more suitable am supposed to, because it would be amoral if I didn't meet my friend, especially if ti has been arranged earlier.

Is it correct? I'd like you explain me those constructions in details, please :)

1
  • 'Be supposed to' gives a nod to an external arbiter of standards, even if only probable public opinion (We're supposed to spend at least two hours on our homework). 'Ought to' references rather a code of ethics or at least known best practice (I ought to eat less fat). – Edwin Ashworth Mar 29 '15 at 15:30
1

"be supposed to do something", is required to do something because of one may find himself in a situation, or put himself in a situation: agreement, promise, and lack of authority if the usage in negative form: "I am not supposed to remove these books from the reference room". It is an idiomatic expression not a modal. Modal verbs are must, shall, will, should, would, can, could, may, and might.

must, and have to are a lot stronger, the strongest is 'must'. and there is 'should' in between have to and supposed to do.

You must obey the law.

shall expresses strong assertion, and promise in a positive form; in the negative, a command, a divine order; thou shan't steal!

In the interrogative shall expresses an offer, " Shall I pick you up in the airport?"

ought to, comes close to should, as it indicates duty, and correctness.

Your usage is by the book.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.