I saw a sentence but I am not sure about its tense.
She was to prepare for the spelling test.
I think instead of "was", "has" or "had" is better. I think that "was" is wrongly used here.
English Language Learners Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for speakers of other languages learning English. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this communityI saw a sentence but I am not sure about its tense.
She was to prepare for the spelling test.
I think instead of "was", "has" or "had" is better. I think that "was" is wrongly used here.
They're both valid, and I don't recall this specific distinction being raised on ELL before, so...
1: I had to leave at midnight (where had is often pronounced hat, see this question on ELU)
I was obliged, of necessity, to do so2: I was to leave at midnight
It had been prearranged (by myself or others) that I would leave at midnight
Perhaps this might make the distinction clearer...
3: I had to leave at midnight, but I decided to stay overnight - INHERENTLY CONTRADICTORY
4: I was to leave at midnight, but I decided to stay overnight - a bit dated / formal, but otherwise fine
So in OP's specific context, if she was to prepare for it then preparing for the test was (hers or someone else's) plan (and maybe things didn't go according to plan), whereas if she had to prepare for it, she had no choice; she must do it, come what may.
Be to +infinitive usually means that you are supposed or expected to do something.
She was to prepare (was supposed to prepare) for the test.
*Have to + infinitive means that the situation doesn't depend on your wishes.
She had to prepare for the test, she had no choice.
"She was to prepare for the spelling test".
It certainly can be used like that where it is a special use of "be" called "quasi-modal be".
It has some semantic affinities with the modal auxiliaries in that it is used for deontic necessity where it is comparable to "must". And syntactically it resembles them in that it has only a primary form, as well as having all the auxiliary properties such as inversion (was she to prepare for the spelling test?), a negative form (She wasn't to prepare for the spelling test) and so on.
She was to prepare for the spelling test.
She | was | to prepare | for the spelling test.
"was" is past tense; past tense means an action that started and ended before now. This means that in the past she had an upcoming spelling test. We know this because of the infinitive adjective phrase on the other side of the linking verb "was." The phrase, acting like an adjective, modifies the subject "she" to describe something about her--she had to get ready for a spelling test. She was to prepare for it. The adverb prepositional phrase "for the spelling test" simply modifies "prepare" the infinitive verb in the infinitive phrase.
Was. v.
d : to take place : occur
Another way of looking at it, is that English over time might have dropped a word which would have been there originally, and would make sense:
"She was [expected/intended/required] to prepare for..."
I'm not sure if this is historically and technically correct but it 'feels right'.
The current English usage carries this sense, as if the words in brackets are silently present. Perhaps they once were.