Ravi DwivediMay 26

Asking German speakers on Fediverse.

The attached photo is from Goethe Institute's A2 level coursebook and has a sentence:

> Man soll keine Fotos von Kindern posten.

We had to formulate a sentence with "dass", so in the class we got the following sentence:

> Ich bin der Meinung, dass man keine Fotos von Kindern posten soll.

Shouldn't we use "sollten" (Konjunktiv II of "sollen") here instead of "sollen"? I think the following conveys correctly that we want to say:

> Ich bin der Meinung, dass man keine Fotos von Kindern posten sollte.

What do you think?

#Deutsch #AskFediverse #German #languagelearning

Show threadscyMay 26

@ravi Native speaker here. Your first sentence is lacking the "dass", it should be

> Ich bin der Meinung, dass man keine Photos von Kindern posten soll.

(btw, most German speakers will spell it "Fotos" these days.)

"sollte" instead of "soll" works too and is probably more formally correct, but in everyday speech people will use either and not think about the difference.

Show threadBuridan's procrastinator ⁂May 26

@scy @ravi

I'd say that "soll" is correct as well, though the meaning would be more categorical than "sollte". It's perfectly grammatical to use an indicative form there, IMO.

(remark: *"sollten" doesn't really exist as an infinitive.)

Show threadJens FinkhäuserMay 26
@quincy @scy @ravi shall vs should
Show threadRavi DwivediMay 26

@jens Which one is more appropriate in the sentence? Do both work here but mean different things?

> Ich bin der Meinung, dass man keine Fotos von Kindern posten soll/sollte.

@quincy @scy

Show threadJens FinkhäuserMay 26
@ravi @quincy @scy Depends on how strongly you want to state your opinion, no?
Show threadRavi DwivediMay 26
@jens I am trying to learn the difference between the two forms, which means I cannot answer your question. @quincy @scy
Show threadJens FinkhäuserMay 26

@ravi @quincy @scy well, "soll" means "shall", "sollte" means "should".

One shall not take pictures of kids is definitely more strongly worded than when one should not.

Show threadkauer

@jens @ravi @quincy @scy "Shall" and "will" are for most if not all purposes the same now. "Shall" sounds a bit archaic/formal to most people, though there are some dialects where "I/we shall" but "you will".

I was absolutely not aware that there was a semantic distinction between "soll" and "sollte". As far as I knew, they are just different forms of the same verb. Interesting to learn.

May 26 at 1:03pmWeb
Show threadRavi DwivediMay 26
@kauer @jens @quincy @scy "sollten" is konjunktiv II of "sollen".
Show threadkauerMay 26
@ravi @jens @quincy @scy Yes - different forms of the same verb, no?
Show threadBuridan's procrastinator ⁂May 26
@kauer @ravi @jens @scy yes
Show threadRavi DwivediMay 26
@kauer What do you mean by "semantic distinction"? @jens @quincy @scy
Show threadJens FinkhäuserMay 26

@ravi @kauer @quincy @scy Konjunktiv II is less "concrete" than Konjunktiv I. See also "irrealis", e.g. "if I had"

In this case, "should" is more speculative than "shall"; "it'd be good if" rather than "it's expected that".

Show threadkauerMay 26
@jens @ravi @quincy @scy Oh, OK, I see what you mean now. Yes. I thought you were ascribing literally different meanings.
Show threadkauerMay 26

@ravi @jens @quincy @scy A difference in meaning (beyond mere tense).

So "gehen" and "stehen" have a semantic difference, but "gehen" and "geht" (or "stehen" and "steht") do not, given the same context of course.

Show threadRavi DwivediMay 26
@kauer @jens @quincy @scy sollte- is konjunktiv II of sollen and not a different verb.