"Vi ville ha spist om noen andre hadde laget mat."
Translation:We would have eaten if someone else had cooked.
14 Comments
For ten weeks this sentence seemed to me to suggest that the "we" in the sentence were just too lazy to cook, but we would have eaten if someone else would have cooked for us. But just today I suddenly see it with new eyes and it's really a burn, a jab at someone's unsavory cooking ^ ^
would eat = ville spise; would have eaten = ville ha spist
Edit: forget that, I'm just tired and confused.
From the notes in this lesson, "ha is quickly disappearing from colloquial language". You could still see it from the difference spist vs spise though.
Shouldn't "We would have eaten if some others had cooked" be accepted? "Andre" is plural, right?
600
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that when applied to people, noen translates as "someone", not "some". You wouldn't say "someone others" (at least, I hope you wouldn't), you'd say "someone else".
"Lagd" should be accepted in addition to "laget", they're both past participle of "å lage" according to http://ordbok.uib.no/
It's pronounced differently, and thus not accepted for the listening exercise.
"made food" not an accepted alternative to cooked? Might be too much of a colloquial thing.
Hm, I got marked incorrect. Maybe there was something else wrong with my sentence.
