Reportative skal and skulle: 'Is Said To'

You already know skal as the modal of obligation and plans (jeg skal på jobb = I'm off to work) and as one of Norwegian's futures (det skal regne i morgen = it's going to rain tomorrow). This page covers a third, quite separate use that learners almost never get taught and yet meet constantly in newspapers, gossip and casual talk: skal and its past form skulle as evidential markers of hearsay. Han skal være svært rik does not mean he will be rich — it means he is said to be rich / he's reportedly very rich. The speaker is flagging that this is second-hand information they have heard but not verified. English has no single word for this; we paste in is said to, reportedly, supposedly, apparently. Norwegian folds it into the modal. (For the obligation and future senses, see verbs/modal-skal; for the broader system of marking your source, see pragmatics/evidentiality.)

The core meaning: "according to what I've heard"

When skal is followed by være or by ha + a past participle, and the sentence is clearly not about a plan or a command, it carries the reportative reading: the speaker is passing on a claim they heard from someone else and is not vouching for it.

The key signal is the complement være (and, for past events, ha + participle). Where deontic skal would be followed by a verb of action you intend or are obliged to do, evidential skal is followed by være describing a state someone claims holds, or ha describing a past event someone claims happened. You are not promising anything; you are quoting the grapevine.

Past events: skal ha + supine

For hearsay about something that already happened, Norwegian uses skal ha plus the supine (the perfect participle, the -t / -dd form). This is the workhorse of crime reporting and rumour alike.

Notice how a newspaper uses this to report unconfirmed facts without committing to them — exactly the function of English allegedly and reportedly. Tyven brøt seg inn asserts it as fact; tyven skal ha brutt seg inn signals "this is what we've been told." For journalists and learners reading them, this distinction is not decorative — it marks the legal and epistemic difference between an established fact and an allegation.

skulle: the more distanced, doubtful hearsay

The preterite form skulle pushes the hearsay further away from the speaker. It adds scepticism or detachment — often "supposedly, though I have my doubts" — and is the form you use for rumours you half-disbelieve, or for reporting within a past narrative.

The pragmatic colour of skulle here leans toward the ironic or the doubtful, especially paired with liksom (as if / supposedly). Where skal være is fairly neutral relaying ("the word is..."), skulle være often whispers "...but don't bet on it." This is why a reviewer might write restauranten skulle være eksklusiv when they intend to puncture the claim in the next sentence.

Telling the three skal's apart

Because the same word does three jobs, context does the disambiguating. Run this mental check:

Two clues settle almost every case. First, the subject: a third-person subject you're gossiping about (han, hun, den nye sjefen, filmen) skews evidential; a first-person jeg/vi skews intention. Second, the complement: skal være and skal ha sagt are hard to read as plans, because you don't schedule a present state or a completed act.

The minimal pair above turns entirely on subject and framing: same words, skal være der, but jeg ... klokka åtte is a plan while han ... allerede, har du hørt det is a report.

The hearsay system: skal, visstnok, etter sigende, angivelig

Evidential skal does not work alone. Norwegian has a small, tight kit of hearsay markers that pair with it and reinforce the "not my claim" signal. Knowing the set lets you read register precisely.

• visstnok — "apparently, I gather" (neutral, very common in speech and writing)
• etter sigende — "according to what's said / reportedly" (slightly formal, idiomatic)
• angivelig — "allegedly" (formal/journalistic, often legal)
• liksom — "supposedly" (informal, frequently sceptical)

These adverbs and skal are not redundant — they layer. Han skal ha solgt hytta already says "reportedly"; adding visstnok is like English "he's apparently said to have sold it," a natural doubling Norwegian tolerates and even prefers in careful reporting.

Why English speakers miss this

English packages hearsay as a separate phrase (is said to, reportedly) or a raising verb (he seems to, he's supposed to). It never recruits the future modal will/shall for the job — he shall be rich is archaic and means obligation, never rumour. So when an English speaker sees han skal være rik, the trained reflex maps skal → shall/will and yields the wrong reading he will be rich. The fix is to learn skal være / skal ha as a fixed evidential frame and translate it straight to is said to be / is said to have, reserving the future reading for action complements with first-person or clearly predictive subjects.

Common Mistakes

Reading evidential skal as the future. This is the headline error: mapping skal være onto will be.

Dropping ha in past hearsay. For a reported past event you need skal ha + participle, not bare skal + participle or skal var.

Forcing an English modal where there is none. Learners stall trying to find the "one word" for skal and produce stilted output. Accept that the natural English is a phrase.

Using skulle when you mean neutral relaying. Skulle drags in scepticism; for a plain "the word is...", use skal.

Treating skal være as your own assertion. The whole point is distance; if you have verified it, drop the skal.

Key Takeaways

• skal være = "is said to be"; skal ha
  • participle = "is said to have" — a grammaticalised hearsay/evidential use distinct from obligation and future.
• The complement is the key signal: a state (være) or a finished event (ha
  • supine) after skal forces the reportative reading.
• skulle is the more distanced, often sceptical variant ("supposedly, but..."), especially with liksom.
• It pairs with visstnok, etter sigende, angivelig to build a compact hearsay system; these layer rather than conflict.
• English has no single equivalent — translate with is said to / reportedly / supposedly / allegedly, and never read evidential skal as the future will.