"Education should be free of charge."

Translation: Bildung sollte kostenlos sein.

[Mrs_Coxackie]

Bildung soll kostenlos sein. Not correct?

[VaclavKlic]

there is another exercise where it is wrong to use a noun without an article as it is the case in english for general nouns, but when you do it here, die ausbildung.. is marked wrong.

[AhmedAbdelslam]

Why not "Die Bildung"?

[avk0515]

Ist "soll" wirklich falsch in diesem Satz? Wäre "ought to" eine bessere (genauere?) Übersetzung für "sollte"?

[mizinamo]

Oft passt "supposed to" für soll und "should" für sollte.

ought to weist noch ein bisschen nachdrücklicher darauf hin, dass sich das "so gehört"; ich denke aber nicht, dass das im Allgemeinen eine "bessere" oder "genauere" Übersetzung für sollte ist.

[CraigTedma]

As a native English speaker, I often find it difficult to distinguish a difference in meaning between "should" and "supposed to". So trying to distinguish"soll" from "sollte" only magnifies the confusion.

From my internet research:
"I should" implies that I accept myself that I should do something and "I am supposed to" means that some outside entity maintains that I am supposed to do something.

Also, "supposed to" is narrower than "should", and for a subject which is a thinking entity, it implies either duty or intent. For example, "You are supposed to be there", means "You intend to be there, or "you have a duty to be there". But since education is not a thinking entity, this distinction does not apply in this case.

So in this case, "Education should be free of charge" would mean, "I myself believe education should be free of charge" and "Education is supposed to be free of charge" would mean "I was informed that education is supposed to be free of charge".

So when you say "Oft passt ("supposed to") für soll und ("should") für sollte." Is that the distinction you are making?

So here, does "Bildung sollte kostenlos sein" mean "I believe education should be free of charge" and "Bildung soll kostenlos sein" mean "I was informed education is supposed to be free of charge?"

[GraemeJeal]

Why was I given the translation "Bildung sollte nichts kosten"?

[quis_lib_duo]

It basically says the same but is, admittedly, a different sentence equivalent to Education should not cost anything.

[GraemeJeal]

Thank you. I never know, when I get given a translation different from the answer shown, whether I would have been marked correct if I had given that answer myself.

[Bekir978479]

Bildung muss kostenlos sein:?

[mizinamo]

No -- "must, has to be" is stronger than and not the same as "should be".

[OldMate2]

There's a difference between mussen and sollen, same as in English, there's a difference between must and should. What your sentence is saying is that there's an obligation to be free and that's not what the question sentence translates to.

[deactivated user]

Can someone remind me why sollte isn't past tense?

[mizinamo]

It could theoretically be past tense ("was supposed to be"), but 99% of the time if you see sollte, it'll be conditional instead ("should").

[PhiliWacht]

Why is my answer, which is the same as the solution, marked as wrong? Why is my entering "Bildung sollte kostenlos sei' wrong when "Bildung sollte kostenlos sein" is given as the solution? What is the difference that makes my entering "Bildung sollte kostenlos sein' wrong while your answer of "Bildung sollte kostenlos sein" correct?

[mizinamo]

Why is my entering "Bildung sollte kostenlos sei' wrong when "Bildung sollte kostenlos sein" is given as the solution?

Because you wrote sei at the end instead of sein.