# Wo soll er sonst gewesen sein?



## Alan Evangelista

Hi, guys!

I heard this sentence in a TV series:

Wo soll er sonst gewesen sein?

The TV series English subtitles translated that sentence as:

Where else would he have been?

However, AFAIK, the literal translation of this sentence to German is:

Wo wäre er sonst gewesen?
(konjunktiv II Plusquamperfekt)

I do not recognize the verbal tense used in the first sentence: "soll ... gewesen sein". Is that correct German at all?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## elroy

Hi Alan,

Can you give us more context?

The German sentence is perfectly correct.  Your sentence is also correct, but it doesn't mean the same thing -- even though both sentences can be translated using "would have" in English.

_Wo soll er sonst gewesen sein?  _"Where else would he have been?" in the sense of "Where else could he have been?"  In other words, "What other place is a place where he could have plausibly been?"  It's a rhetorical question.  The speaker is implying that there _isn't_ another place he could have plausibly been. 

The sentence can also mean "Where else is he alleged to have been?"  But given the English translation, I don't think this was the intended meaning in this case.  If you give us the context, we can be more sure. 

_Wo wäre er sonst gewesen?_  "Where would he have otherwise been?"  In other words, "Where would he have been *if* a certain thing had or had not happened or been the case?"  This is a conditional.  For example:

_Stefan sagt, er wäre gestern gar nicht auf der Party gewesen, wenn das Wetter schlecht gewesen wäre._
_Na, wo wäre er denn sonst gewesen?_
_Wahrscheinlich zu Hause. _


----------



## Alan Evangelista

Thanks for the detailed answer!

The context is: A police officer is asking a suspect where he was at a certain point in time. His wife interrupts, saying that the suspect was home with her at that time and then she also says the first sentence I mentioned. There is no condition which precedes it.

1) It seems clear to me that the sentence has this rhetoric meaning you mentioned. However, I thought that the Konjunctiv II was not used exclusively in conditional sentences, but also in imaginary situations like this one?

2) Could you clarify which verbal tense is used in "soll ... gewesen sein"?


----------



## elroy

Alan Evangelista said:


> However, I thought that the Konjunctiv II was not used exclusively in conditional sentences, but also in imaginary situations like this one?


 I'm not a native speaker, but I don't think "Wo wäre er sonst gewesen?" would be used in this context.  But let's wait and see what natives say. 


Alan Evangelista said:


> 2) Could you clarify which verbal tense is used in "soll ... gewesen sein"?


 *Literally*, "soll ... gewesen sein" corresponds to "should have been" in English, but in this context "should have been" would not be used in American English (I think it might be possible in British English).  I *think* the closest literal equivalent in Portuguese would be "deve ter estado"; again, I don't think that would be used here, but it might help you understand the German structure.

Does that help?


----------



## Hans in Texas

I agree with elroy’s Second interpretation; “soll” as used here implies that someone(the policeman) believes or says he knows where the suspect had been at the time in question. English would require a separate clause to capture the reference to this outside opinion: Where do you think/say he was (yesterday evening)? In my opinion, the translation is a careless one. 

PS, the “sonst” is attached logically to the “Wo”, so my final version is: Where else do you say he was/could have been?


----------



## elroy

Sorry, Hans in Texas, but that reading is not supported by the context.  The translation is correct.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> Alan Evangelista said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that the Konjunctiv II was not used exclusively in conditional sentences, but also in imaginary situations like this one?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a native speaker, but I don't think "Wo wäre er sonst gewesen?" would be used in this context. But let's wait and see what natives say.
Click to expand...

I agree. _Soll_ expresses more than just an imaginary situation.


Hans in Texas said:


> I agree with elroy’s Second interpretation; “soll” as used here implies that someone(the policeman) believes or says he knows where the suspect had been at the time in question. English would require a separate clause to capture the reference to this outside opinion: Where do you think/say he was (yesterday evening)? In my opinion, the translation is a careless one.


Exactly. It means that the policeman is convinced he knows where the suspects was at the time. The sentence is a rhetorical question, an invitation to prove him wrong.


----------



## elroy

berndf said:


> It means that the policeman is convinced he knows where the suspects was at the time.


 I don’t get that from the context.  I understand it as implying that the policeman thinks he could have plausibly been somewhere else, but not that the policeman knows where he was.


----------



## bearded

I substantially agree with elroy (#2).  However, I must admit that, when elroy says 'plausibly', a meaning like ''according to the only plausible surmise' = contrary to any other absurd hypothesis (like the one the police officer might have) is implied.  The text does of course not say ''where else do you think he could have been'', but I think that the connotation sensed by Hans cannot be completely ruled out.

Alan mentioned Kon.II.  Now I wonder if  'wo soll er sonst gewesen sein' and 'wo_ sollte_ er sonst gewesen sein' would have any difference in meaning, or what the nuance would be.  Elroy's (and of course natives') opinions would be appreciated.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> I don’t get that from the context.


The construction is a set phrase (_wer/wo/was/wie soll ... sonst ..._).


----------



## elroy

berndf said:


> The construction is a set phrase


 Okay, but that's beside the point.

The point is, does it have to mean the policeman thinks he *knows* where the guy was, or can it mean that the policeman thinks the guy *could *have been somewhere else?


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> The point is, does it have to mean the policeman thinks he *knows* where the guy was, or can it mean that the policeman thinks the guy *could *have been somewhere else?


As I said, it's a set phrase and set phrases have conventional meanings going beyond what can be construed from the individual words.


----------



## elroy

elroy said:


> The point is, does it have to mean the policeman thinks he *knows* where the guy was


 So your answer to this is yes?


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> So your answer to this is yes?


As I said.


berndf said:


> It means that the policeman is convinced he knows where the suspects was at the time.


It is a rhetorical question expressing that the speaker does not believe there is any credible alternative and it therefore must have been the way he thinks it was. At the same time it is an invitation to produce a believable alternative explanation to shatter this conviction. It is a very frequent rhetorical figure.


----------



## elroy

So are you saying the following would not work?

_Ich weiß nicht, wo Stefan gestern war, aber ich glaube nicht, dass er zu Hause gewesen sein könnte._
_Natürlich war er zu Hause! Wo soll er denn sonst gewesen sein? _


----------



## berndf

This sentence (_Wo soll er denn sonst gewesen sein?_) is a perfect example of what I described.


----------



## elroy

No, it's not; it's a perfect example of what _I've_ been describing.  The speaker says "Ich weiß nicht, wo Stefan gestern war."  You said it had to mean that the person thinks they *know* where the other person was.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> You said it had to mean that the person thinks they *know* where the other person was.


Exactly:
Speaker A: _Ich weiß nicht, wo Stefan gestern war, aber ich glaube nicht, dass er zu Hause gewesen sein könnte._
Speaker B, *contradicting *speaker A: _Natürlich war er zu Hause! Wo soll er denn sonst gewesen sein?_
Speaker B is convinced he knows where Stefan was.

PS: It seems we mean the same thing but somehow have a different scenario in mind as to who said what. What I mean is that *the speaker who utters this rhetorical question *is convinced he/she knows the answer. And I am sure, Hans meant the same.


----------



## berndf

bearded said:


> Alan mentioned Kon.II. Now I wonder if 'wo soll er sonst gewesen sein' and 'wo_ sollte_ er sonst gewesen sein' would have any difference in meaning, or what the nuance would be. Elroy's (and of course natives') opinions would be appreciated.


There maybe contexts where the different matters. I can't answer the question without a precise context. It also depends on the context if _sollte_ would be understood as _Konjunktiv_ or_ Indikativ_.


----------



## bearded

How about 'sollte' in the same context as in the OP sentence? Would that change anything, or be less idiomatic?


----------



## Hutschi

Alan Evangelista said:


> Thanks for the detailed answer!
> 
> The context is: A police officer is asking a suspect where he was at a certain point in time. His wife interrupts, saying that the suspect was home with her at that time and then says the first sentence I mentioned. There is no condition which precedes it.
> 
> 1) It seems clear to me that the sentence has this rhetoric meaning you mentioned. However, I thought that the Konjunctiv II was not used exclusively in conditional sentences, but also in imaginary situations like this one?
> 
> 2) Could you clarify which verbal tense is used in "soll ... gewesen sein"?



Hi, the wife is either lying or she says the truth.
She interrupts to give her husband an alibi.
So "Wo soll er sonst gewesen sein?"  is indeed a pure rhetorical question to block additional questions.

"He was with me at home. Where else do you think? (Do you want to say I'm lying?)"
I do not know whether my translation is idiomatic.

"Wo soll er sonst gewesen sein?" is purely pragmatics and an idiom. An answer ist not expected to this question in this situation. It is supposed to stop additional questions, but the police officer knows this, of course.
The meaning is "He was there and nowhere else. Don't you believe me?"
It is a defending phrase here.


----------



## bearded

Berndf (re your PS in #18):  didn't Hans write that_ the policeman_ knows - not the person who asked the question?  This discussion is becoming somewhat confused.


----------



## elroy

bearded said:


> didn't Hans write that_ the policeman_ knows - not the person who asked the question?


 Indeed, Hans also said he supported the _second_ reading I gave -- "Where else is he alleged to have been?" -- which, as I said, is not supported by the context.


Hutschi said:


> I do not know whthter my translation is idiomatic.


 The translation in the subtitles -- "Where else would he have been?" -- is perfect. "Where else could he have been?" is also possible, but "would" sounds more challenging.


----------



## Hutschi

I see. So  "Where else would he have been?"  is a rhetorical question, it includes defending the own position, and it does not mean "wo sonst kann er gewesen sein?" -- and not "Wo sonst würde er gewesen sein" in the given context. "Wo sonst würde er gewesen sein" is a very other content.

PS: In German an equivalent phrase to "Wo soll er sonst gewesen sein?" is "Was denken Sie denn?"

"Er war natürlich bei mir zu Hause, was denken Sie denn?"


----------



## elroy

Hutschi said:


> So "Where else would he have been?" is a rhetorical question, it includes defending the own position


 In this context, yes.  It can be a neutral question in other contexts.


----------



## Hutschi

Thank you. This helps me to adjust my inner dictionary.


----------



## berndf

bearded said:


> Berndf (re your PS in #18):  didn't Hans write that_ the policeman_ knows - not the person who asked the question?  This discussion is becoming somewhat confused.


Yes. That's why I wrote this PS. I was convinced, and still am, that Hans understood the context to be that the policeman said _Wo soll er sonst gewesen sein? _And my reply was within the framework of this understanding (whether correct or not). That has probably caused the confusion between @elroy and me.


----------



## Hutschi

But context is; 
(#3)

*His wife* interrupts,* saying that the suspect was home* with her at that time and *then says the first sentence I mentioned*. (=Wo soll er sonst gewesen sein?)


----------



## Hutschi

elroy said:


> I'm not a native speaker, but I don't think "Wo wäre er sonst gewesen?" would be used in this context.  But let's wait and see what natives say.
> *...*
> Does that help?



If I understood the context correctly, it does not fit, you are right.

It would be fitting if the policement thinks about the facts and asks himself or the others "Wo wäre er sonst gewesen?" This is either thinking (for example to find other possibilities) -- or asking for a cooperative answer. (=Wenn er nicht dort war, wo war er möglicherweise wirklich?)


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> But context is





berndf said:


> And my reply was within the framework of this understanding (*whether correct or not*). That has probably caused the confusion between @elroy and me.


----------



## elroy

Hutschi said:


> It would be fitting if the policement thinks about the facts and asks himself or the others "Wo wäre er sonst gewesen?" This is either thinking (for example to find other possibilities) -- or asking for a cooperative answer. (=Wenn er nicht dort war, wo war er möglicherweise wirklich?)


 This would be the neutral use of “Where else would he have been?” I mentioned earlier.  Here, too, “could” is possible.


----------



## Hutschi

Thank you, Bernd and Elroy.. That clarifies it.

So I want to summarize a little bit:

Basic: *The construction is a set phrase *(Bernd, #10)

--- The meaning is basically the same in following cases, but connotation may be very different. All are idiomatic and used in the corresponding situations.
(Did I forget something?)

1. (Bernd, #18)
Speaker A: _Ich weiß nicht, wo Stefan gestern war, aber ich glaube nicht, dass er zu Hause gewesen sein könnte._
Speaker B, *contradicting *speaker A: _Natürlich war er zu Hause! Wo soll er denn sonst gewesen sein?_
Speaker B is convinced he knows where Stefan was.

2. (Hutschi, #21)
Policeman: "Wo war er?"
The woman says: "Er war bei mir, wo sollte er sonst gewesen sein?" --- "He was with me; where else would he have been?" (Defending her position, rhetorical question.

3. (elroy, #15)

_Ich weiß nicht, wo Stefan gestern war, aber ich glaube nicht, dass er zu Hause gewesen sein könnte._
_Natürlich war er zu Hause! Wo soll er denn sonst gewesen sein?_
4.  The policement thinks about the facts and asks himself or the others "Wo soll er sonst gewesen sein?"="Wo wäre er sonst gewesen?"  (neutral usage, literal usage)


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> but connotation may be very different


I don't think so. The connotation is virtually always the same. But you have to say it in a certain way. The tone in which it is said is is somehow impatient and _sonst _is stressed. Other interpretations would only become possible if this is not respected. But that is extremely unlikely.


Hutschi said:


> The policemen thinks about the facts and asks himself or the others "Wo wäre er sonst gewesen?" (neutral usage, literal usage)


That is a completely different sentence.


----------



## Hutschi

I meant "Wo könnte er sonst gewesen sein" in the sense: "Wo wäre er sonst gewesen." I corrected it by adding the "original" sentence.


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> I meant "Wo könnte er sonst gewesen sein" in the sense: "Wo wäre er sonst gewesen."


The sentence under consideration was _Wo *soll* er sonst gewesen sein?_ Why would we even want to discuss_ Wo könnte er sonst gewesen sein?_ or_ Wo wäre er sonst gewesen?_ except for clarifying that these sentences are completely unrelated to the topic?


----------



## Hutschi

You are right. I removed 4 (strike through, so you can see it yet.)


----------



## Perseas

Alan Evangelista said:


> 2) Could you clarify which verbal tense is used in "soll ... gewesen sein"?


Present tense allegation ("soll") regarding an action completed in the past ("gewesen sein").


----------



## Alan Evangelista

Hans in Texas said:


> I agree with elroy’s Second interpretation; “soll” as used here implies that someone(the policeman) believes or says he knows where the suspect had been at the time in question.



I am not sure if it is relevant to this discussion if the police office suspects where the suspect was OR if he knows it, so I'll clarify. Having watched the entire scene, I am sure that the police officer is *not* *sure* where the suspect was. He has a suspicion that the suspect was in the crime scene, but that's it.

Also, I am not sure if it is clear to everyone, but the sentence "Wo soll er sonst gewesen sein?" is said *by the wife. *IMHO in a rhetorical defensive way.



Perseas said:


> Present tense allegation ("soll") regarding an action completed in the past ("gewesen sein").



Thanks, I was looking for that information! Is it gramatically correct to combine "sollen" in present tense with "sein" in Perfekt? I thought the correct sentence would be "Wo sollte er sonst gewesen sein?". If both are correct, what is the difference between them? Politeness level, degree of certainty?


----------



## Hutschi

Alan Evangelista said:


> ...
> 
> Also, I am not sure if it is clear to everyone, but the sentence "Wo soll er sonst gewesen sein?" is said *by the wife*, IMHO in a rhetorical defensive way.
> ...


Hi I understood it this way. It is a defending style used by the wife, and I assume as connotation that she lied, but that is not clear. It sounds like a wrong alibi. Or the wife is just dominant and does not let her husband speak. In the movie this should be clear.

*soll*
"Wo soll er sonst gewesen sein?" ("Soll" is here present tense, the sentence basically means "what the hell do you think he was?" "Was denken Sie eigentlich, natürlich war er da."  It is a fixed phrase. 

*sollte*
"Wo sollte er sonst gewesen sein?" - "Sollte" cannot be past tense in this context. It would mean: "where was he supposed to be/where was he send to be?" and this does not make sense here.

But it can be Konjunktiv 2. In this case it ist not the fixed phrase, but a modified one, and it sounds more polite (in my mind) - and it sounds more hypothetically, so it makes the sentence more fuzzy.
Syntactically both is possible. Only Konjunktiv 2 makes sense here.


----------



## Schlabberlatz

Alan Evangelista said:


> Thanks, I was looking for that information! Is it gramatically correct to combine "sollen" in present tense with "sein" in Perfekt? I thought the correct sentence would be "Wo sollte er sonst gewesen sein?".


You know English, so you can compare it with, for example, "he *may* have been". There’s nothing wrong with "sollen" in present tense combined with "sein" in Perfekt


----------



## Alan Evangelista

Schlabberlatz said:


> You know English, so you can compare it with, for example, "he *may* have been". There’s nothing wrong with "sollen" in present tense combined with "sein" in Perfekt



That makes sense. Thanks for the analogy!


----------

