what's the different between two ways to use suppose?

could anybody tell me the attendances of "suppose" in following two sentences
1: I am supposed to be there
2: I supposed to be there
what's the different? many thx

Bad examples, but anyway

1. Required - He is supposed to go to be there
2. Permitted - We are not supposed to be here.
3. Expected - You're supposed to be my mate

There are also:

4. Pretend or hypothesize - Suppose, for a moment, that the earth really is flat. (from supposition)

5. Accept as a possibility - I suppose you could say that I'm well-off.

I'm not sure what you mean by "attendances" in your original post...

I meant "in *the* original post", of course.

many thx
and furrykef, actually i wanted to say "could anybody tell me the two ways to use "suppose" in following two sentences " just make the question formal, was that incorrect?

and I really wanted to ask was why some times when people use suppose with BE sometimes without?

To answer the question... "I supposed to be there" doesn't really make sense to me... it should be "I am supposed..." or "I was supposed..." I think I would always use this meaning of "supposed" with a form of "to be".

There is a completely different usage of "supposed" that doesn't use "to be", for example: "I supposed that she was dancing at the time." In this case, "supposed" is functioning as the past tense of "suppose". To suppose something is to think something, but it's usually not 100% certain, but it's not a "wild guess", either. There's a reasonable chance that she was dancing. The word "that" could be omitted in the sentence, because it's implied, which gives us "I supposed she was dancing at the time." It may look similar, but it has nothing to do with the meaning of "supposed" that expresses an obligation. :)

The word "suppose" is also used in hypothetical situations: "Suppose you were the President of the United States. What would be your foreign policy?"

- Kef

I love Uriel !

Uriel for 2008 President !!

Then, all boys should go for hiding. She is a tough cookie. ;)

<<"Suppose you were the President of the United States. What would be your foreign policy?" >>
I think I would pull out all American troops from foreign lands. That way there would not be any international terrorism against the USA.

If you use "supposed" with "not". The meaning of sentences can be tricky to understand. For example,

-I am not supposed to be here. (It means that I am present here right now.)
-I am supposed to be here. (It means that I am not present here right now).

>>There is a completely different usage of "supposed" that doesn't use "to be", for example: "I supposed that she was dancing at the time." In this case, "supposed" is functioning as the past tense of "suppose". To suppose something is to think something, but it's usually not 100% certain, but it's not a "wild guess", either. There's a reasonable chance that she was dancing. The word "that" could be omitted in the sentence, because it's implied, which gives us "I supposed she was dancing at the time." It may look similar, but it has nothing to do with the meaning of "supposed" that expresses an obligation. :)<<

It should be noted that "supposed" as used as a main verb and as used in "supposed to <verb>" are pronounced differently in most dialects of North American English. At least here, they are:

"supposed" (main verb) ["sVpo:st]
"supposed to" ["spostu:] or ["spost@:] (but when spoken carefully or emphatically may be ["spo:stu:] or even ["sVpo:s:tu:])

Note the difference in vowel length, as "supposed" (main verb) underlyingly has /zd/, which is devoiced in my dialect, whereas "supposed to" underlyingly has /st/ except in careful or emphatic speech where it may have /zt/ or even /zdt/ (note, though, that the cluster [st:] generally becomes [s:t] in actual realization).

> I am supposed to be here. (It means that I am not present here right now).

I disagree. If you say "I am supposed to be here", then you must be there, otherwise the use of "here" doesn't make sense. For you to say "here", you have to already be there, right? :) I think in both sentences, the speaker's location will depend on the use of here/there and not on whether the verb is negated.

Moreover, one could easily say "I am supposed to be here" and actually be there:

Person 1: Aren't you supposed to be at Danny's place?
Person 2: No, I'm supposed to be here.

Or maybe like this:

Person 1: What are you doing here?
Person 2: I'm supposed to be here. Jack wanted me to come.

- Kef

I don't know if I really want to run for president, but I'll be more than happy to accept any campaign donations. ;P