Hi all, I'm curious to know what my fellow native English speakers think about using supposed to <infinitive> in the present perfect. To set up the sentence, I'll explain what I mean by "present perfect" with a simple sentence pair: (1) My landlord is out of town. (2) My landlord has been out of town for 3 weeks. The verb is in (1) is present tense and describes the present situation, whereas the verb in (2) is present perfect and describes not only the present situation, but also something about the past (namely, that the present and past are the same in some respect). Both (1) and (2) are totally grammatical for me. What I'd like to know is, is it possible for any native English speakers out there to use supposed to in the present perfect? For example: (3) My landlord is supposed to fix the door. (4) My landlord has been supposed to fix the door for 3 weeks. To me, (3) sounds perfectly natural, but (4) sounds awful. In fact, I almost want to say something like (5). (5) My landlord has been supposing to fix the door for 3 weeks. But even that sounds terrible. It's a shame, but also fascinating, that this construction is ungrammatical for me: it's such a useful thing to say! Note also that the following are ungrammatical for me: (6) My landlord claimed to be supposed to go out of town. (7) My landlord might/could/should/must/would be supposed to go out of town. (8) My landlord will be supposed to go out of town. In other words, it seems that only the present tense (am/is/are) or simple past (was/were) of to be can combine with supposed to, and not the infinitive or any other tense.