Ramey Rieger (X) Jul 5, 2018:

@Susan Rule of thumb for articles, as I know it, follows the KISS principle with regards to tenses. The German obsession with passive in an article that depicts what IS or WAS, I usually translate with a subject and make the sentence active. This is not only improves readability for an American public, it also sets the action in the correct perspective.

For example, if I read it correctly, these are guidelines, things that (should) take place at each session and took place at the session described:
Patient and doctor discuss the disease (wurde). The patient is/was (sollte) told that the surgery has excellent prospects of success, which means his symptoms will disappear. During the discussion, various expectations are/were (wurden) discussed. It is/was important (wurde) that the information is/was easy to understand. (etc.)

Björn Vrooman Jul 5, 2018:

Hello Susan Hope you had a great Independence Day!

RE 1):
"Verb Tense Guidelines When Referring to the Document Itself
To preview what is coming in the document or to explain what is happening at that moment in the document, use the present or future tense:

In this study, I will describe…
In this study, I describe…"
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/grammar/ver...

That's from Minnesota and that is how I remember it. Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying; I don't know. Ofc, consistency is key.

The 2nd sentence from the paragraph you quoted is exactly what Anne explained below and what Ramey posted--but you already know that.

Best wishes

Susan Welsh (asker) Jul 5, 2018:

my confusion At the risk of appearing obsessive (!), but for the benefit of people who look at this in the future, including myself: The word sollen (in various inflections) appears 30 times in this 6000-word article. Most of the time "should" or a variation of that works fine. A few other points though: 1) In my first example, I would not have written in English that what follows in an article "will" be based on such-and-such, because the article has already been written; I would have used the present tense. 2) One of the puzzling paragraphs, which I did not quote, describes what happens in the first of two sessions with a therapist, and it goes back and forth between wurden and sollen in ways that seem odd to me as an English-speaker:

The patient's disease was discussed with him (wurde). He should be told (sollte) that the surgery has good prospects of success. This is supposed to (sollte) make clear to him that his symptoms will disappear. During the discussion of all this, various expectations were (wurden) discussed. Care was taken (wurde) that the information would be easy to understand. (etc.)

So, I will adapt these "sollens" as per the good advice offered by you all. Thanks!

Anne Schulz Jul 4, 2018:

Hallo Björn, da sind wir uns völlig einig. Mir ging es nur darum zu erklären, warum ein vorsichtiger/realistischer Mensch nicht schreibt "Wir haben das und das gemacht", sondern "es sollte so und so gemacht werden" und sich trotzdem auf Abläufe in der Vergangenheit bezieht – und nicht, wie Susan aus den ersten Diskussionsbeiträgen geschlossen hatte, auf das, was künftig idealerweise gemacht werden soll.

Björn Vrooman Jul 4, 2018:

@Anne Yes, it does not. It can still be helpful, though, since soll(t)e is a very difficult word to deal with. In fact, after seeing the document, I agreed that here, the word means "our intention was to."

I am not sure I agree with your last bit, though:
"...because he/she cannot be sure that the protocol's requirements were met by everyone throughout the intervention period."

You can never be sure of that unless you've found a way to get into someone's head. I see this as a statement of what they intended to do at that stage in the process. Like you said: "the intervention protocol may have ..." That's all there is to it, I believe.

Best

Anne Schulz Jul 4, 2018:

The "vitamin", however, does not reflect the use of "soll" and "sollte" in this case, IMO. The author does not say "dem Patienten sollte vermittelt werden" because this is his own meaning. Rather, the intervention protocol may have stipulated to present the surgery in such a way that the patient would adopt a positive attitude, but the author avoids a simple-past statement like "dem Patienten wurde vermittelt", because he/she cannot be sure that the protocol's requirements were met by everyone throughout the intervention period.

Susan Welsh (asker) Jul 4, 2018:

@Björn and all Thanks for the helpful comments, and that nice little link to the vitamins website! I was unaware of the distinction they describe there about the different usages of "sollen" and "sollten."
I am taking Independence Day off, and will return to contemplate my article and all the "shoulds" tomorrow.

Björn Vrooman Jul 4, 2018:

RE sollte Not sure why you're asking what it means in this particular context? I found the document. It's all simple past (@others You can google it). The section you're referring to is about something that was done several days before surgery. As far as I can see, it actually happened.

In light of this, I agree with Thomas (Ziel war es...) and Ramey (Our objective was..).

RE sollen: That only points to the article you're translating. At the time of writing, they intend to use a specific model to evaluate results throughout the rest of the document.

Best

Björn Vrooman Jul 4, 2018:

Hello Susan Journalism has the whole "soll(t)e" construction a lot. It's easier there in some way because in EN, you'd use it is/was said/reported that or planned/intended.

Interestingly enough, I'm not sure I agree with Thomas about the second sentence and you don't seem too certain about it either. I read it not as something that has happened in the past but something that should be done.

Here's a little something to illustrate:
http://www.deutsch-vitamine.de/pdf/sprachkarten/grammatikkar...

Ramey Rieger (X) Jul 4, 2018:

First case I would simply say "are based on," since (I assume) that article continues to elucidate. In the second case, using Thomas' construction, "Our objective was/We aimed to inform patients..."
In most articles I have translated, the German subjunctive usually calls for either simple present or simple past.

Thomas Pfann Jul 4, 2018:

The second 'sollte' I agree with what Phil and Anne already wrote. And I think you, Susan, are not wrong in thinking that the article is reporting what was actually done in the past.

The second 'sollte' probably refers back to something which was mentioned before (your context will help - what's the sentence before that one?) and kind of explains why this was done. You could probably paraphrase as follows:

„Ziel war es, dem Patienten zu vermitteln, dass der Eingriff [...] bedeutet, [um so eine möglichst hohe Ergebinserwartung aufzubauen.]“
or
„Wir wollten dem Patienten vermitteln, dass der Eingriff [...] bedeutet, [...]“

Susan Welsh (asker) Jul 3, 2018:

If what you all say is correct, which it undoubtedly is, then I am wrong that the article is reporting what was actually done with or to the 124 patients going in for cardiac surgery, and it has shifted over into conclusions about what should be done with such patients in the future. It's a strange way to write an article, but that wouldn't be the first time someone wrote an article that didn't make much sense to me.

(You can't say someone "was to be informed" if it is all already finished. Unless you want to imply that the procedure was done wrong, which the authors don't.)

Anne Schulz Jul 3, 2018:

agree with phil Sollen/sollten is just an expression of intention in present tense or past tense, very much like "shall" except that you probably would not use "shall" in a non-legalese context in English. Terms 'are designed to be consistent' with the model, the patient 'was supposed to be informed', etc. Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting this wording for translation, just trying to get the meaning across!

philgoddard Jul 3, 2018:

As I see it... The first one says sollen, meaning "will be", ie subsequently in this document. The second says sollten, and if you're sure that it doesn't mean "should", then it must mean "had to be".