Tom is supposed to be here half an hour ago

#1

Tom is supposed to be here half an hour ago.
The above sentence is grammatically wrong, isn’t it?

4 Likes

#2

Tom is supposed to have been here half an hour ago. (rewritten by me)
Is the above sentence correct?

4 Likes

#3

How about ‘Tom was supposed to be here half an hour ago’? Or ‘Tom should have been here half an hour ago’.

6 Likes

#4

Yes, it is correct. The verbal part ‘to have been’ indicates PAST.
(I also concur with Torsten for his alternatives.)

3 Likes

#5

Shall we say, ‘Tom should have been here half an hour before".

1 Like

#6

Yes, you can, as suggested by Torsten!

2 Likes

#7
  1. Tom should have been here half an hour before.
  2. Tom should have been here half an hour ago.
    What’s the difference in meaning between the above two sentences?
2 Likes

#8

The difference.

  1. Tom should have been here half an hour before. (Before something else occurred)
  2. Tom should have been here half an hour ago. (Half an hour ago from now)

Let me recast the two sentences slightly modified.

  1. Tom should have been here half an hour before the arrival of the chief guest.
  2. 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