"Zouden we in Amsterdam stoppen?"
Translation:Would we stop in Amsterdam?
I feel the closest translation should be ' Should we stop in Amsterdam' but it's been rejected...!
That's Zouden we in Amsterdam moeten stoppen?
- zouden = would
- zouden moeten = should
- zouden kunnen = could
- zullen = will
Actually, it would be "Shall we..." if it said "Zullen we...", and it would be "Will we..." if it said "Gaan we...", you mixed them up.
Shall indeed translates to zullen as well, but the future gaan we like your sentence, is synonym to zullen we. Also a sentence like: we will go only translates to we zullen gaan.
In my example, [...]="stop in Amsterdam.", so "gaan we" isn't synonym to "zullen we". "Gaan we..." means you're asking someone who knows the answer whether or not you're stopping in Amsterdam (or whether you're stopping in Amsterdam or in Rotterdam), while "Zullen we..." means you're discussing the travel plans with someone, and proposing the idea of stopping in Amsterdam. "Gaan we..." would mean "Will we..." (or "Are we going to..."). I rest my case ^_^
Btw, how did you get italics? Ctrl + i doesn't seem to work...
I think zullen we can also be used as a synonym to gaan we, so asking, not discussing. Similar to e.g.: zal dit vliegtuig naar Rome vliegen? But you're right that is not the most common usage for zullen we.
For italics use asterisks (one to start and one to end the italics), for bold use double asterisks (again a double to start and a double to end), for bold+italics, use triple asterisks.
I feel like "Were we to stop in Amsterdam?" should be accepted too. "Zouden we in Amsterdam stoppen?" can also indicate asking for an intention.
"Were we to stop in Amsterdam" is an old subjunctive, I think. In any case, it has a conditional sense, so it will never appear as a separate sentence. E.g. "Were we to stop in Amsterdam, we could smoke some pot and see a Rembrandt." This sounds somewhat archaic, since we usually use "if" now, as in "If we were to stop in Amsterdam, we could smoke some pot and see a Rembrandt." To ask a question, it is always "Will we stop in Amsterdam?" or "Are we going to stop in Amsterdam?" or even "Shall we stop in Amsterdam?"
Ok, thanks! I'm not a native English speaker, but for example, when the train suddenly stops, and you are confused, in Dutch you would say "Zouden we in Amsterdam stoppen?" -> "Were we supposed to stop in Amsterdam?" I might be off completely, but that is how I understood it. To me it is the only circumstance where I would say "Zouden we in Amsterdam stoppen?" as a separate sentence.
Ik ben het met je eens! I also think 'Were we supposed to stop in Amsterdam' is the right translation.
"Were we supposed to stop in Amsterdam?" is definitely something one would hear. "Were we to stop in Amsterdam?" might at one point have been a valid translation, but it is terribly archaic, and now sounds conditional, as I said. Really, if my train made an unexpected stop, I would be much more likely to ask "Do we stop in Amsterdam?" but I suppose that is a general question about the train's regular stops.
Technically they are interchangeable -- however the subject 'we' in this sentence is not emphasised. More emphasis is placed upon: 1,) Whether or not a stop would be made and/or 2,) Would Amsterdam be a/the place where we would stop?
Compare with a sentence such as: "Would we or they stop in Amsterdam?"
Another: "Als zij in Amsterdam stoppen, zouden wij ook stoppen?" If/When they stop in Amsterdam, would we also stop (in Amsterdam)?
Geen probleem :)
If you need more clarification, let me know.
Without any context, how do we know whether the emphasis is on "we" or "Amsterdam"?
"Would it be us or them who stops in Amsterdam?" is not correct, being that 'us' and 'them' are accusative pronouns. It would have to be "Would we or (would) they stop in Amsterdam?"
Good eye! Thanks for the correction \^_^
Edit: Although I am aware of the pronominal case distinctions in English, would the following sentences not be valid?
It (NOM) would be them/us (ACC).
They/We (NOM) would stop.
The first sentence is pretty much the same as the one you mentioned -- albeit with the subject and verb inverted and without the subclause.
I just finished working and am overdue for sleep -- thus my brain is not at full capacity, and I might be overlooking something. :)
'It would be us' is not correct. I think you would have to rephrase totally: 'We are meant' or 'We are the ones' ('They are meant.' - 'They are the ones.')
I'm not really sure what this sentence means. The translation in English isn't something we would ever say, it would either be 'Should we ...' or 'will we ...', unless it's a sentence fragment (i.e. "would we ... if ...").
It doesn't really mean anything in Dutch either. I could be used to mean "Were we supposed to stop in Amsterdam?", but that's informal usage and not technically what is said.
Would we stop in Amsterdam? I don't know what they are trying to say in English, but we would never say this. It's hard out of context to realise the meaning behind some of these phrases, but honestly, I don't know of anyone who would say this as it stands. The only way I can see it being used is in a sentence such as: 'If there is a detour because of the railway work, would we stop in Amsterdam?' I'd be happy to hear from someone what it is really supposed to mean
As you point out, there is no context, so most certainly we would say this, indeed, I may very well have. You are offering me a European performing tour. I love Dutch, so the first question I might ask is "Would we stop in Amsterdam?" You and I are planning on taking a train from Paris to Copenhagen, but you have expressed worry, because there have been riots in Amsterdam. Trying to assess whether this requires a cjange of plans, I might ask "Would we stop in Amsterdam?" Without any context, almost any sentence allowed by the grammar is likely to have been spoken. The only time I might say a sentence is truly unlikely is when we have an obvious and overwhelming preference for another construction that expresses precisely the same meaning. I cannot think of such an obvious substitute here.