1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: German
  4. >
  5. "Ihr sollt essen!"

"Ihr sollt essen!"

Translation:You are supposed to eat!

June 14, 2018



Why not "you should eat"? That seems like a better translation.


Accepted 7/21/2000


Why is "You are to eat" wrong? It's not a common way to say it in english, but it is correct english.


I did that too and it was not accepted. I think it should be, even though it is not the most natural way to say it.


In this case I'd say what's natural depends on where you're from. "You are to eat." It's what I thought of before "You are supposed to eat.", though I'd say the first is more of a command. Perhaps for me "You are to eat." would be translated better as "Esst"?


You are to eat is only correct English at a stretch.

If you were listing instructions it could work as a clause e.g.

First, you are to eat the apple. Second, drink the water.

On its own "you are to eat." Is not a sentence used in English


Is the consruction of the sentence different if you use ER. I can't tell the difference between Er and Ihr when spoken. Can someone explain a clue I should look for? Thanks ahead of time.


Hi Greg, it's similar to English, in that the verb conjugates according to the subject. Er/Sie/Es/Ich soll essen. Wir/Sie sollen essen. Ihr sollt essen.


I thought sollen meant should? No one else seems to have that translation


It's a bit hazy in English now with the difference between should/shall/am supposed to. Shall is almost dead and should appears to be replacing it. Shall/Should I open the window? This is different to should/am supposed to: I should/am supposed to be working. Similar uses and meanings.


What's wrong with "You shall eat!" I'm a native British English speaker, and when I saw the German, this is what I assumed the translation would be. "You are supposed to eat", does not mean the same thing. [Guests] "We don't feel right eating your party food, as we weren't actually invited." [Host] "You shall eat!"

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