I don't think it sounds awkward in English at all, and gone is the past tense of go . . . Ir is 'to go' . . . so I think gone should have been accepted, but it wasn't . Maybe I'm not understanding something, but the "awkward" argument doesn't work. In English, I hear 'gone' as often as I do 'left' in this context.
Shelly and RSPRENG, using "went" or "gone" is not what's awkward about this sentence.
It's true it can serve as a grammatical sentence, but it will give people "brain-strain" to find useable instances for something that one "has supposed," (or "has assumed," or "has guessed," as some people offered), that is about an action that was happening and still could be happening or affecting the present. (In other words, another pres. perf. action.)
As of April 2018, Duo incorrectly gives the simple past as one correct answer for the first set of verbs, then uses pres. perf. "that he has left," OR "that he has gone" for the last half of the sentence. Hearing simple past for the first half would be far more common, but the sentence does contain the pres. perf. helping verb, which should be translated.
For "I have (or he has) supposed," I can think of one scenario: A detective says, "Aha! The prosecutor has supposed the whole time that he would lose his case, because the witness has left the country. But we found him!" ("Supposed, guessed, thought or assumed" are verbs that often have have a "will" or "would" phrase following).."that he would lose the case" is the assumption or supposition, using the conditional, "would lose".)
IMO, Duo needs to toss that sentence.
Teacher A: "What do you suppose Johnson has done?" Teacher B: "I have supposed that he has left."
However, if I was editing a document in which someone had used this phrasing I would recommend they rewrite it without two similar tense specifiers referencing separate nouns. The sentence would read more correctly if one of either "have" or "has" was removed.
I disagree with the logic of the sentence. I've read that it's not good to use the same verb tense twice in the same sentence as expressed above.
To me, these are 2 seperate events that happen at different times.
The "suponer" is a fixed point (preterite) that happened in the past and expresses doubt. That puts "ir" as:
Pluperfect subjunctive (a.k.a. past perfect subjunctive) -> expressing doubt in the past
With "suponer" expressing doubt which I've read it does:
"Supuse que él se había ido" -> I supposed that he had left. Preterite + pluperfect subjunctive
P.S. - Why not have 1 name for 1 verb tense, sans aliases? Dopplegängers are cool but languages are hard enough to learn without having to cut through the several names describing 1 verb tense in just 1 language. Until then the WordReference description for conjugations will be the only thing I follow.
I agree with others that the sentence is a bit odd, but even so I think it still works as a lesson. "He supuesto que" -> I have assumed that, "él se ha ido" -> "he has left." The latter is because "se...ido" is a conjugation of irse, meaning to leave as opposed to "ir" alone (to go).
It's taken me a while but I'm finally getting used to irse, which pops up in all sorts of forms, like "se va" and "se fue".
I entirely agree Alan: irse = to go away
However, not accepted. I've reported it 9th Sept 2014.
Noah, kk-IRSE is not subjunctive because after a conjunction(que), verbs of supposition and a few others(time, concession, purpose, condition, etc.) only require the subjunctive when the verb of the DEPENDENT clause(el se ha ido) is not yet a Fact or ACCOMPLISHMENT. "Se ha ido" is in the present present perfect and therefore a completed action. This is the EXCEPTION to verbs such as this, as almost always they are followed by the present or future. Duo slipped in a very tricky one. LOL.
kk-My advice for what it's worth...don't worry about it at all for now. Anybody will understand you either way and you will understand it either way, which is the point of it all for most people isn't it? Besides, that distinction has to be a little advanced for this course. Lots of luck with it all.
So I am thinking something.. Ido is the participle of ir (because its being expressed in present perfect of course) so it now makes sense to me that there would be no reason to use subjunctive here... BUT in order to test my shaky understanding, I would like to take a stab at something: if the sentence was "I have assumed that HE LEFT" (without the "has") would the proper translation now be "He supuesto que él se fuere"?
Noah-Nope, not subjunctive, all that matters is the action in the dependent clause(He left). The action is complete so there is no uncertainty about it. In the present or future, the action hasn't been completed yet such as: 'He is leaving' or ' will( might, should) leave'. I think your'e getting it anyhow. LOL.
I, so much, would like to know in what context that sentence is being said. It is a really strange sentence, that seems to need a complex context to be 100% grammatically correct.
I lean towards something like @cthompson81 suggests.
It seems to me to me that it has to be an answer of a question like this:
Game leader: I want to know what answer to the riddle you came up to, but first of all, what have you assumed that the suspected man is located at the time the diamond was stolen, what did you, the first game participant, write on your answer note?
"I have assumed that he has left" was marked correctly here. I didn't have any other options that made sense with the translation of the words, but this sentence sounds very clumsy in English. "I assumed that he had left" or "I assume that he has left" translates better.
Okay. 'Irse', I just verified, via the following translation site: http://translation2.paralink.com/ DOES mean 'to go away'. Though everyone seems to disagree, I would personally also use the past subjunctive tense: 'He supuesto que el se habiera ido', in view of the overall sentence construction and context.
It's not subjuncitive, but if it was/were, 'haya' would be the correct form. Also if it were (si fuera*) pluperfect (ie 'had') which it isn't, it would be hubiera or hubiese, not habiera . * Notice that 'Si' triggers the subjunctive mood when it's part of a contrafactual statement. Suponer/creer/pensar does not, no matter what you may think. The context, despite what you believe, is totally irrelevant; only ACTUAL triggers matter.
Although DL can get things wrong, of course there is a helluva difference between 'had' & 'has'. It's a fundamental grammatical comprehension issue. Many students are prone to rephrasing phrases in a more simplistic way that they find easier to get their heads around. Would anyone shorten 'Hamlet' to - 'A Prince goes mad, kills someone, then commits suicide.'? BTW, the 'past perfect' mentioned by gmalcolm is also known as the pluperfect tense, at least it was when I studied English & French decades ago.
I see a lot of people have already asked questions about this sentence. I just don't like the way Duolingo translates it: "I have assumed that he has gone." It sounds strange to me and not the way an English speaker would typically word that. Something along the lines of "Yo supuse que él ha se ido" would sound more natural in English, but maybe not in Spanish?