"Das Krankenhaus soll für meine Therapie bezahlen."
Translation:The hospital should pay for my treatment.
30 CommentsThis 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.
"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.
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!