The word schon is called a particle and is often used to add 'flavour' to a sentence (it has some other functions too). It's hard to get an idea for its usage without being exposed to conversation in German. Literally, it means "already". But here as a phrase schon wieder is something slightly exasperated like "AGAIN?!".
Already is a good translation in this example. Schon wieder indicates that something is done again after a short period of time or a high number of repetitions before.
So, the English translation doesn't do it justice. It seems to me that, "Are you supposed to cook again, already", would:
1) Translate all the words
2) Convey the meaning of the original German
3) Use both languages colloquially
4) Teach us to speak German
I wrote "Are you already supposed to cook again?" and it did not accept it.
I understand that German has modal particles with no direct translation, but I thought that translating the "schon" particle would help to translate the sentiment of the sentence better
Am I wrong?
So it is pretty much the same with опять vs снова in Russian (снова = wieder, опять = schon wieder)
Since Duolingo specifically states that it is not teaching Modal Particles, isn't it misleading to include one in a German sentence, especially since schon has a meaning on it's own, that is not included in the English translation?
Duo's translation does nothing to capture the essence of "schon", then, and should imho be amended to convey the effect of "schon" here.
Additionally if Duo wants to teach us these "flavor particles" it would be really quite helpful to do so in a specific unit, as currently you only encounter them once in a blue moon, which makes learning/memorizing them unnecessarily difficult, especially since you also see them used in their more "normal" (?) sense, making it rather difficult to identify exactly when they're there only to 'flavor' the sentence.
(Best that I can tell is they're sometimes used 'normally', sometimes for 'flavor', and I have no idea how I am supposed to tell when they're being used which way.)
I put "Are you supposed to be already cooking again" and they marked me WRONG!!!! :D
So shouldn't it be "Are you supposed to already cook again?" or "Are you supposed to cook again, already?" or "Should you cook again already?" or "Should you already cook again?" etc?
So I read it as "should you already cook again?" rather than "Are you supposed to already cook again" - why is the former incorrect?
Looking only at the grammar, "should" corresponds to "solltest" in German, while "sollst" would be literally "shall". If you ask "Should you [..]?", to me it sounds like asking someone if he thinks it would be a good idea that he cooks again, while the German sentence asks whether someone else wants him/her to cook again. Am I wrong?
"Are you supposed to be cooking again" marked wrong. Correction says "Are you supposed to cook again". Isnt it the same thing?
I was also marked wrong for this. Yes, our answers mean exactly the same as the 'proper' translation. It's yet another example of inconsistency of the 'I walk/I am walking' type. I've raised several, but none ever get fixed.
So, according to the MOD, az_p, "Are you already supposed to cook again?" should be accepted.
Question about 'Sollen' - in a lot of sentences Duolingo translates it as 'supposed to' rather than 'should'. I feel like there's a big difference in meaning between these; 'supposed to' suggests an outside force making you do it or adhering to rules, whereas 'should' implies that you may be doing it out of your own desire.
"Are you supposed to cook again? The boss was really unclear!"
"Should you cook again? It was really nice last time!"
Does 'Sollen' work in both these ways and determined by context? Or does it have a tendency towards meaning one or the other?
why is it incorrect to translate the German as, "Should you be cooking again?"?
I agree it should, esecially as Shawn's version above was accepted, and yours sounds more natural.
Does Duo accept any translations with "should" or "shall"?
All of the ones I tried got rejected.
That is an awkward way to word it and wouldn't be said by an English speaker.
My be it is going to insted supposed to beacouse he cook once he faild and he will cook again
Speaking as an englishman, it seems to me that "Should you cook again now?" Captures the flavour of the german sentence (no pun intended), however I was marked wrong.