"lernen" translates as both "to learn" and "to study" and in this context both should be accepted.
Can anybody help me with the logic that says, that "He says that you should study" is a bad translation to this sentence? DL marked it wrong.
Lernen is also used in the same way as to study in English, when you tell a child "Go to your room and study, tomorrow you have an important exam!", for example. You wouldn't use "Studiere" in this context, but "lern(e)". So I don't know why your sentence is not allowed. From my (German) perspective there is no reason against it.
Thanks Max. I'm certain it's a good translation. There is a subtle difference between "to learn" and "to study", but with the lack of context of this example, both are fine. I did report it.
I agree with you guys: "lernen" is to study, and it should be accepted like that. I have also reported it. (April 1,2019)
Since when is the translation of "lernen" as "study" not correct?
Here it should be fine, but there are contexts in which it wouldn't work, like "Du lernst etwas über das Leben", which couldn't be "You study something about life", I think, or "Der Schüler lernt bei/von seinem Meister". Lernen is generically to obtain knowledge, no matter if it's by experience, personal studies, teaching etc. In this sense it is closer to "to learn".
My translation: “He says that you have to learn” Duo corrects me with: “He says that you need to learn” I think that my answer is closer to the meaning of “Er sagt, dass du lernen sollst”. Is is certainly not a need.... (like food and water). Any comment?
“He says that you have to learn” = "Er sagt, dass du lernen musst". I'm afraid I have to agree with DL on this one!
So the difference between the Dutch and German structure is that in Dutch it would be moeten leren while in German it's lernen sollst (in other words, in Dutch it's modals followed by verb and in German it's verb followed by modals)?
No, that is not the reason, it is not always like that. The reason why here they say "lernen sollst" is because it is part of a subordinate clause, initiated by the subordinating conjunction "dass". In this case, the finite verb (sollst) comes always last. There are also coordinating conjunctions, they are always followed by the normal word order (finite verb second, infinite verbs last). The phrase could also be "Er sagt, du sollst lernen".
Easiest to answer first: 1. "dass" (formerly written as "daß" before the Rechtschreibungsreform) introduces a new dependent / subordinate clause. E.g. -- "Ich weiß, dass er reich ist." (I know that he's rich.) "Ich habe erfahren, dass ich einen Fehler gemacht habe." (I found out that I made a mistake.) 2a. "das" is either the nominative (subject) or accusative (direct object) singular definite article (the) -- E.g. "Das Buch ist von J.W. von Goethe." (The book is by J.W. von Goethe."; "Siehst du das Mädchen?" (Do you see the girl?) 2b. ...or "das" can be a relative pronoun, introducing a new relative clause that has a singular neuter noun as its antecedent (Bezugswort). E.g. -- "Kennst du das Mädchen, das mit dem Lehrer spricht?" (Do you know the girl who's speaking with the teacher?"
I have thought that "sollen" means "must", nevertheless this exercise doesn't accept the answer "He says, that you must learn". Can anybody, please, explain, why "must" is incorrect?
Typically sollen translates to shall, should and ought. Must (or have to) is typically müssen.
Who would really say in English "He says that you should learn"? It is an unfinished sentence, "learn" needs an object. It is quite common to say, however, "he says that you should study", but that has been rejected. Why?
I wrote: "he says you will learn" and it was considered incorrect with the following correction: "he says that you'll learn". Really?