Translation:If I had had money, I would have bought better clothes.
I just cannot hear the difference between "ville jeg" and "vil jeg" :( I've listened to it about 10times now and still can't hear it
It sounds as much as "vil" as "ville" here, to be honest, as the "e" is very soft and flows into the next word, so don't beat yourself up over it.
A native speaker will still hear it as "ville", as that's the only thing that makes sense. I wouldn't have reacted to the audio if it weren't pointed out to me, but I understand how it could be difficult to distinguish.
I don't know if it could be of use to the course creators, but I'll leave this feedback anyway. The notes section contains absolutely no mention whatsoever of how exactly the Norwegian Conditionals align with the English I,II,III counterparts. Maybe for an English speaker it is somehow obvious, but it made a huge difference for me. Till this moment I had an impression that any English conditional is expressed the same way in Norwegian. Thus if I wanted to say
If I had had money, I would have bought better clothes, I would say
Hvis jeg hadde penger, ville jeg [ha] kjøpt bedre klær. And apparently this is not the way you say it
Not fond of these English translation options. Mine was 'If I had money I would have bought better clothes, so I was counted wrong. Doubling the word 'had' doesn't seem correct to me even though it is a direct word for word translation. Never have I said 'had had' but there is lots of English grammar I am learning.
"Had had" is grammatical in English. It sounds a little weird at first for non-natives, but it's perfectly grammatical.
- We had had five sons before our first daughter.
It's completely grammatical but most of us here just drop the second had, the only people I know of that say "had had" are people who don't have english as a first language
While I agree that some dialects in English rarely use the phrasing that includes the second had, most people do say it. :)
Some say it as "if I'd had", with the 'd becoming ever quieter through generations, it would seem.
What about this:
'James, while John had had "had," had had "had had"; "had had" had had a better effect on the teacher'.
It's quite a well-known sentence that people use to demonstrate/joke about this particular oddity of the English language.