Is it "supposed to" or "suppose to"? Which is correct?

[ariellyn]

I have always used "supposed". It just fits. But lately, more and more I see "suppose to". Which one is right?

:shrug:

[Aristus]

1. You're supposed to know which one to use without being told.

*...although you just have been...*

[ariellyn]

4. Thanks for confirming that I was right.

:hi:

[miss_american_pie]

2. Supposed

:hi:

[ariellyn]

3. Thank you. I THOUGHT I was right.

:hi:

[Ptah]

5. I suppose, to be correct, it would be supposed. n/t

[Boojatta]

6. It's in the dictionary

How about pronunciation?

You are suh-POZE-tuh know that the suh-POE-zud reason for the invasion of Iraq was WMD.

[NewWaveChick1981]

7. Supposed to.

:hi: Most people don't say it that way---they run it together---but that's the proper spelling.

[johnnie]

8. Ought to

[Blue-Jay]

10. Ort ta.

[hickman]

9. The first. The second is sloppy english. n/t

[Oeditpus Rex]

11. How'm I sposta know?

:shrug:

[Rabrrrrrr]

12. Supposed. "Suppose to" is used by the same illiterate fuckbags

that aks you to borrow them a dollar or who drinked alot of whiskey or who could of been a contender.

[mykpart]

14. And they could care less about spelling!

Their to busy being morans!

[Rabrrrrrr]

15. Irregardless, there inability to rightly spell

only tells us them is stupid.

[petronius]

13. As a basic rule of thumb, I'd say that anything that is getting more

and more common is probably wrong...

Until we all get used to it - then it will be right!