Tom is supposed to be here half an hour ago.
The above sentence is grammatically wrong, isn’t it?
4 Likes
Tom is supposed to have been here half an hour ago. (rewritten by me)
Is the above sentence correct?
4 Likes
How about ‘Tom was supposed to be here half an hour ago’? Or ‘Tom should have been here half an hour ago’.
6 Likes
Yes, it is correct. The verbal part ‘to have been’ indicates PAST.
(I also concur with Torsten for his alternatives.)
3 Likes
Shall we say, ‘Tom should have been here half an hour before".
1 Like
Yes, you can, as suggested by Torsten!
2 Likes
- Tom should have been here half an hour before.
- Tom should have been here half an hour ago.
What’s the difference in meaning between the above two sentences?
2 Likes
The difference.
- Tom should have been here half an hour before. (Before something else occurred)
- Tom should have been here half an hour ago. (Half an hour ago from now)
Let me recast the two sentences slightly modified.
- Tom should have been here half an hour before the arrival of the chief guest.
- Tom should have been here half an hour ago so that I could have introduced him to my friends.
I hope Teo gets the point!
4 Likes