The problem of this sentence is that, although the structure is the same for all enumerated subordinate clauses, all three moods (Indikativ, Konjunktiv I, and Konjunktiv II) are lumped together:
Charly schilderte ihm, wie sie die Woche verbracht hatte [Indikativ], dass sie seit Montag in einem inoffiziellen verdeckten Einsatz für Gennat unterwegs war [...
The author is changing from indicative to subjunctive mood (Konjunktiv) here in the middle of quoting Charly in indirect speech. Both "hatte" and "hätte" are possible, "hätte" is simply the subjunctive version of "hatte". Similarly, "dass dieser Schupo ermordet worden war" is possible.
Note also that "in ...
"hätten" = Konjunktiv von "haben" = "to have" in english
"wären" = Konjunktiv von "sein" = "to be" in english
To your examples:
"Wir wären gern im Zoo" translates to "We would like to be in the zoo"
"Wir hätten gern im Zoo" is not a complete german ...
This is a common figure in journalistic writing. They say what has happened in indicative, and then name their sources in an appended clause like "wie [Quelle] mitteilte".
Note that grammatically, this is not reported speech, because "wie die Kantonspolizei am Dienstag mitteilte" is the subordinate clause while the reported facts are in ...
Yes, this is correct. "soll" can be used for hearsay, with the nuance that the speaker tends to believe it's true. I can tell you, for example, "Der Präsident soll sich nach Florida zurückgezogen haben", which means that I heard it, but am not 100% certain. In this sentence, "soll" is in the Indikativ mode.
In this case, there is a distinct difference in meaning between the present tense and the Konjunktiv.
The present tense can express an expectation or denote a rumor or unconfirmed claim:
Er soll für die Regierung arbeiten.
"He is expected to work for the government."
"It is said that he works for the government."
The Konjunktiv is used ...
This not really a question of indicative vs. subjunctive.
If you use actual quotes, you write literally what has been said.
So if the judge said "Diese Rechtssache ist unzulässig", you would use exactly that.
If the judge said "Diese Rechtssache sei unzulässig" (unlikely, because subjunctive doesn't make sense here) you would use that.
Your example is not indirect or reported speech.
The part after the comma (shortend: »wie die Polizei mitteilte«) is a »Konjunktionalsatz« (subjunctional clause). It starts with a subjunction (in German: unterordnende Konjunktion), the subject comes immediately after it, and the verb is at the end. Separable verbs are not separated. So, the part before the ...
A phrase like "ich möchte gern..." is typically used to request something or to ask for permission to do something. The translation you quoted, "I would like..." is quite accurate. In combination with a verb, it would be something like "I would like to (do something)".
Ich möchte gerne Fieber messen im Ohr.
would be something ...
Du hast völlig Recht, beides ist möglich, sowohl
Wenn ..., würden die Emails schneller beantwortet.
Wenn ..., würden die Emails schneller beantwortet werden.
Der Unterschied liegt nur darin, dass bei der ersten Variante der "direkte" Konjunktiv II von werden benutzt wird, also würden. Bei der zweiten Variante dagegen wird der "...
That's no subjunctive, but rather an archaic remnant of an imperative in 3rd person. (This mode is actually called "Jussiv")
This was used roughly in the middle ages by upper-class persons to express contemptousness to the adressed person.
The King would have addressed the servant with
Er schenke mir noch Wein nach
Man staunt (Indikativ)
means that the author is informing the reader that people (or he himself) are astonished, while
man staune (Konjunktiv I)
is an invitation or request to the reader to be astonished or to marvel.
A similar, quite popular, use of Konjunktiv as a request is:
Man möge mir die Frage verzeihen ...
Man verzeihe mir die Frage ...
Because hätte does not refer to fahren but to können. In the second clause (which is actually the main clause), können is an Ersatzinfintiv which plays the role of a perfect participle.
So without können it's
Ich wäre gefahren.
but with können it's
Ich hätte fahren können.
The problem with the examples is that a lot of different uses of the verbs "sein" and "werden/würde" are mixed up in them. So much that I'm unsure what to explain to really help you. My suspicion is that you're struggling with the different uses of "werden", and are mixing them up, so I will go through that, refering to your ...
du könntest is actually not past tense. The indicative past tense (Indikativ Präteritum) would be du konntest (without the Umlaut). The Konjunktiv II in past tense would be du hättest gekonnt (using the Indikativ Plusquamperfekt du hattest gekonnt as the base form and transforming the auxiliary hattest into its Konjunktiv II form hättest).
The Konjunktiv II ...
It is meant like:
"Es scheint so", "Ich habe das Gefühl/ den Eindruck..." "Es kommt mir so vor, als sei ich ... geworden"
Copied from german.lsa:
Konjunktiv I [Subjunctive I]:
2. Reporting Thoughts, Beliefs, Opinions
This is an extension of Subjunctive I’s basic function of reporting speech:
Er dachte, sie sei vom Mars.
Würde wird korrekterweise nicht für die indirekte Rede verwendet. Das gilt besonders, wenn der Konjunktiv I zur Verfügung steht. Das ist hier der Fall.
Er sagt: "Ich tue es." -> Er sagt, er tue es.
Daher zeigt die Verwendung von würde an, dass in der direkten Rede würde verwendet wurde:
Er sagt: "Ich würde es tun." -> Er sagt, er ...
The first sentence is incorrect. It can be turned into a correct sentence by adding "haben":
Wenn Andy nicht Englisch und Holländisch gesprochen haben könnte, ...
But the meaning is maybe not the intended one: If Andy could not have spoken English and Dutch, ...
There is no way to turn subjunctive II into preterite, because the form of the ...
The sentence "Wenn Andy nicht Englisch und Holländisch gesprochen könnte, ..." is not grammatically correct. Possibly, you are mixing up two different conditions:
[Andy spoke English and Dutch.] But if he had not spoken English and Dutch: "Wenn Andy nicht Englisch und Niederländisch gesprochen hätte, ..."
[Andy could speak English and ...
The combination of quotes and indirect speech leaves the reader puzzled. The best assumption is, that the judge used to conjunctive already in direct speech, but this is quite improbable.
If you want to paraphrase, or make more clear that you are deviating from an actual quote, you need to explicitly point out this e.g.:
Der Richter sagte sinngemäß, (...
As @RHa already said, when quoting somebody literally, you use quotes and write it down as they said:
»Diese Rechtssache ist unzulässig«, sagte der Richter.
If the judge were speaking about a hypothetical case, he would use Konjunktiv 2, and you could also quote that directly:
»Diese Rechtssache wäre unzulässig«, sagte der Richter.
In indirect speech, ...
The German word »gern« usually means "to like". Your sentences are good examples for that.
Susi isst gerne Brot.
Susi likes to eat bread.
This means, that Susi often eats bread because it tastes good to her. The usage of "to enjoy" seems too strong for this sentence, because means to relish something, to have doing so, but for Susi ...
Konjunktiv II is often used instead of Konjunktiv I for reported speech (or in this case, reported thought). This happens in spoken German where Konjunktiv I is almost never used, but also in written German when Konjunktiv I would be indistinguishable from Indikativ. The latter is the case here, because both 3rd person plural Konjunktiv I and Indikativ of ...
You should use Konjunktiv/Subjunctive I here. The infinitive clause contains an example of indirect speech (which extends to thoughts and beliefs). Indirectness is a typical domain of the subjunctive mood. In written German, such an indirectness subjunctive is generally expressed using the Subjunctive I provided that the subjunctive form of the verb is ...
Is it fair to say that gern + subjunctive expresses intention rather than enjoyment?
I think the enjoyment is indeed there, but it would be a mistake to assume the enjoyment lies directly in the proposed action.
Rather than that, these two mutually related aspects are at work:
Enjoyment by serving the customer: In general, it is considered a part of good ...
Here's what I think is going on. (I'm ''not'' a native speaker, so fair warning.) First, this is the first time Ive come across the idea that you use soll for instructions and sollte for suggestions. I suspect it's less a rule and more of a guideline. In any case, German grammar rules are notorious for having many exceptions, caveats and subtleties.
I do ...