"Das Krankenhaus soll für meine Therapie bezahlen."

Translation:The hospital should pay for my treatment.

March 3, 2013

This discussion is locked.


Would "should" be accepted in place of "shall"? I put "shall" based on the hints, but I would never say "shall" in real life or writing. It ("shall") strikes me as very old-fashioned word that is going out of use, except in legalese. On the other hand, "should" and "shall" don't always mean the same thing. In general, I would use "will" if I meant I was going to do something in the future, and "should" if I ought to do something. "shall" can be used in either situation (although the latter I've only seen in things like the ten commandments e.g., "Thou shall...").


Fun fact: even lawyers are encouraged by the US government to never use the word "shall" in any context.



the difference between shall and should is the same as the difference between will and would. oh and thou *shalt lol


"Shall" is definitely NOT the same thing as "will". Shall is much stronger. If you say something "will be done", that means you are planning to do it, and you intend to do it... but sometimes things happen and it doesn't get done.

If you say something "shall be done", that means it is going to be done, period. No excuses. It must be done, because you are obligated to do it when you say "shall".

So, "the hospital will pay for it" means they are intending to pay, and they're planning to pay.

"The hospital shall pay for it" means they definitely are going to pay, they're obligated to do so.

"The hospital should pay for it" means they ought to pay, given the situation and the applicable rules, but they may not pay despite all that.


Classic American Dream


I'm also confused by the usage of 'soll' in this sentence. Why is 'the hospital is supposed to pay for my therapy' not an acceptable translation?


"The hospital is supposed to pay for my therapy" is a valid answer now.


The German "sollen" may be translated as "ought" or "should" (ie "is supposed to"). "Shall" has not been used in English for probably fifty years having been replaced by "will" or "should" depending on the context.


"Shall" is not obsolete, it's British usage. However, it does not mean the same as "soll" which translates as "should" or "is supposed to". ""Shall" in British usage means "will," and can also be somewhat more emphatic. Archaic usage is the biblical "Thou shalt..." form.


I still don't get how can my answer by (must) is wrong while the answer given instead is (will). Any reasonable explanation?


And why is the "the hospital has to pay for my therapy." not acceptable?


That would be "Das Krankenhaus MUSS feur meine Therapie bezahlen".


Thanks. I see that now.


What about translating "sollen" with Going To Future? It seems to me that this sentence could easily be translated as "The hospital is going to pay for my treatment." How wrong am I? :)


Getting some very strange comments about the word shall , can assure you that it in daily use in England , not in any way obsolete at all !


Will Duo Obamacare?


Obamacare is not free


can somebody tell me why the verb "bezahlen" goes at the end? I'm having trouble understanding this sentence structure.


From what I understand, that's just the rule with modal verbs and their infinitives - the infinitive goes at the end. This rule is mentioned in the lesson notes (which you can see in the web version of Duolingo).


Could this also translate to "THIS hospital should pay for my treatment"?


No. "THIS hospital ..." = "Dieses Krankenhaus ..."


Does "soll" mean 'ought to', 'must,' or 'must, according to my will'? It's annoying how this distinction is barely made in English, either


treatment = Behandlung ?!


Why is should sometimes accepted but not in this case? Shall is supposed to be used for a future tense. I don't think soll is a future tense


Agree entirely. My current understanding is that if the hospital «soll ... bezahlen» then it "should pay". If the future were meant (the hospital "shall pay"), then some part of «werden» would be used - probably «wird».

Given the choice between (a) abandoning this understanding of «sollen» and «werden» and (b) supposing Duo has some erroneous view of how "should" and "shall" are related in English, I choose the latter!


" Is expected to pay? " I think that wouls be closer in meaning to "should"


Why is 'fuer' needed here. Can we say the sentence without 'fuer'.

Learn German in just 5 minutes a day. For free.