Die Nachbarin soll gestern im Treppenhaus laut geschimpft haben, aber ich habe nichts gehört.

The female neighbor is said to have complained loudly in the stairwell yesterday, but I didn’t hear anything.

Breakdown of Die Nachbarin soll gestern im Treppenhaus laut geschimpft haben, aber ich habe nichts gehört.

• ich: I
• haben: to have
• aber: but
• Gestern: yesterday
• hören: to hear
• im: in the; (masculine or neuter)
• das Treppenhaus: the stairwell
• nichts: nothing
• schimpfen: to complain
• sollen: to be said to
• die Nachbarin: the female neighbor
• laut: loud, loudly

Questions & Answers about Die Nachbarin soll gestern im Treppenhaus laut geschimpft haben, aber ich habe nichts gehört.

Why does soll appear here—does it mean “should” (obligation), or something else?

In this sentence soll is used for reported information / hearsay: it means something like is said to have / is supposed to have.
German often uses sollen + infinitive to show you’re passing on what you heard, without guaranteeing it’s true. Context plus the perfect form (geschimpft haben) strongly points to the hearsay meaning, not obligation.

Why is it soll … geschimpft haben and not hat … geschimpft?

Because after a modal verb like sollen, German uses an infinitive construction at the end. To express the past, that infinitive construction becomes the Infinitiv Perfekt:

• schimpfen → past participle geschimpft
• plus auxiliary in infinitive: haben
  So: soll … geschimpft haben = “is said to have scolded/complained (yesterday).”
  If you stated it as a normal past fact, you’d say: Die Nachbarin hat … geschimpft.

What exactly is the grammar structure of geschimpft haben?

It’s the perfect infinitive (German: Infinitiv Perfekt): Partizip II + haben/sein (infinitive).
Here it’s geschimpft + haben because schimpfen forms the perfect with haben (not sein).

Why is the verb in the second position (soll) but the other verb parts are at the end?

This is typical German V2 word order in a main clause:

• Position 1: some element (here the subject Die Nachbarin)
• Position 2: the conjugated verb (soll)
• End of clause: the remaining verb parts (… geschimpft haben)
  So the modal verb takes the conjugated slot, and the infinitive phrase goes to the end.

Why is gestern placed where it is? Could it move?

Yes, gestern can move. German is flexible with time/place adverbs, depending on emphasis. Common options:

• Die Nachbarin soll gestern im Treppenhaus … geschimpft haben. (neutral)
• Gestern soll die Nachbarin im Treppenhaus … geschimpft haben. (emphasizes yesterday)
• Im Treppenhaus soll die Nachbarin gestern … geschimpft haben. (emphasizes location)
  The verb bracket still stays: soll early, geschimpft haben at the end.

What does im Treppenhaus mean grammatically, and why im?

im is a contraction of in dem.
Treppenhaus is neuter (das Treppenhaus), and in with a location (not motion) takes dative, so in dem Treppenhaus → im Treppenhaus.

How do I know it’s location (dative) and not direction (accusative) with in?

With in, German uses:

• dative for where (location): im Treppenhaus = “in the stairwell”
• accusative for where to (direction/motion): ins Treppenhaus (= in das Treppenhaus) = “into the stairwell”
  Here there’s no movement; it’s about where the scolding happened → dative.

Is laut an adjective here? Does it need an ending?

Here laut is an adverb meaning “loudly,” so it does not take adjective endings.
It modifies the verb phrase (geschimpft haben): she scolded/complained loudly.

What does schimpfen imply—does it need an object?

schimpfen is often used without a direct object, meaning “to rant / complain / scold / curse.”
If you want to specify the target/topic, you typically use:

• über + accusative: über jemanden/etwas schimpfen (complain about someone/something)
• sometimes mit + dative: mit jemandem schimpfen (scold someone, have a go at someone)
  In your sentence it’s left general: she was loudly ranting/scolding (unspecified).

Why does the second part use ich habe nichts gehört instead of ich habe nicht gehört?

Because nichts = “nothing,” and it’s acting as the object of hören:

• Ich habe nichts gehört. = “I heard nothing / I didn’t hear anything.”
  Ich habe nicht gehört sounds incomplete unless you add what you didn’t hear (e.g., … dass sie geschimpft hat).

Is the comma before aber required?

It’s common, but in strict terms with two main clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction like aber, the comma is often treated as optional. Many writers include it for clarity, especially when the clauses are a bit long:

• …, aber ich habe nichts gehört. (very common)
  Without it is also seen, but the comma improves readability.

Could German also express the “reported speech” idea without soll?

Yes. A common alternative is Konjunktiv I (more formal/newspaper style):

• Die Nachbarin habe gestern im Treppenhaus laut geschimpft, aber ich habe nichts gehört.
  Both signal reported information; soll is very common in everyday language, while Konjunktiv I can sound more formal or journalistic.