Translation:He should be in the ambulance soon.
I entered, ❛He should soon be in the ambulance.❜ This perfectly good English and a correct translation, but was rejected and I lost a 'life' / Health point! Very annoying!
Please Duolingo, get rid of this Health feature that mostly only penalises the learner for faults in the courses or the poor standard of English of the course setters!
Prior to the introduction of the Health feature, this was simply a minor irritation and often just amusing. The discussions could be used to help improve the quality of the courses. However, since the Health System, this is incredibly annoying. Especially so with the Portuguese course, where it appears nothing has been corrected for two years!
Note: I'm not meaning to have a go at the course creators, just the unintended consequences of an ill-conceived feature introduced by Duolingo which has greatly reduced my enjoyment of using Duolingo.
"Be" is most certainly an infinitive in this sentence. If it weren't an infinitive it would be conjugated. In this case it's a BARE infinitive. Sometimes the "to" of the infinitive form is omitted after certain verbs, including modal verbs.
"The bare infinitive is also used after the verbs will, would, shall, should, may, might, can, could and must..."
But the question is why the future is used, when it's not in the English. "Should" is a difficult verb to categorize in English. Historically it was the past tense of "shall" but now it's commonly used as a conditional tense marker. So a native English speaker would translate "should" as "deveria" - which Google translate agrees with.
Deveria is a condition and deverá is the future.
Ele deverá estar na ambulância logo = he must be / he will have to be in the ambulance. Soon, he will be in the ambulance [or he will be dead] = it's not a condition, it's a certain thing, there's only one thing that can possibly happen in the future and that is him being in the ambulance - there's no room for anything else.
Ele deveria estar na ambulância logo = this makes no logical sense in PT, not sure about English: "deveria" can be a suggestion or a condition, but because we're using "logo", you can't suggest or condition anything with "logo". See:
Ele deveria estar na ambulância, mas não está = this is a condition that makes sense, but if you put "logo" there, it makes no sense: He should be in the ambulance soon, but he isn't (soon isn't now, so of course right now he isn't there: "but he isn't" is totally redundant here).
Ele deveria estar na ambulância = a suggestion, works just fine. If you put "logo", then it's not a suggestion anymore, you're saying that soon he must be in the ambulance, that's not a suggestion, it'd be one if you said soon he would need to be rather than must/should.
This is really tricky and confusing - if I didn't make a lot of sense, just say so and I will try to explain better! C:
It's unintuitive to me to that "have to be" is accepted but "need to be" is not. To me, I think of these as being very close, often interchangeable, in meaning in English.
"Should be", on the other hand, seems a much weaker statement than "have to be"...like...it's also very broad / vague / ambiguous. I avoid using the word "should" in English, even though I'm a native speaker, for this and other reasons...it's a problematic word that can often lead to miscommunications.
I.e. "should" doesn't distinguish between need, and something that would merely be beneficial, and it also doesn't distinguish between practical constraints (more likely to be expressed by "need") and moral judgments.
I'm not quite sure how this plays out in Portuguese, but it seems weird to me that "have to" is accepted in a case where "need to" is not.
The English here is "He should be..." That could mean "He has to be..." as in there is a need for him to be, or it could mean that he is expected to he, for example "he should be in the ambulance soon, as it set off to his house 10 minutes ago." Which one is it? Or can it be both?