"Vi ville ha spist om noen andre hadde laget mat."

Translation: We would have eaten if someone else had cooked.

[Moongrovenly]

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 ^ ^

[RMous]

why is "we would eat if someone else had cooked" not accepted?

[Jacbean]

would eat = ville spise; would have eaten = ville ha spist

Edit: forget that, I'm just tired and confused.

[RMous]

I think you're right. I probably hadn't seen the "ha" in the sentence

[Lolgast]

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.

[CommissarFeesh]

"made food" not an accepted alternative to cooked? Might be too much of a colloquial thing.

[Regney]

"Made food" is one of the accepted translations.

[CommissarFeesh]

Hm, I got marked incorrect. Maybe there was something else wrong with my sentence.

[leonardobrunifi]

"Lagd" should be accepted in addition to "laget", they're both past participle of "å lage" according to http://ordbok.uib.no/

[Deliciae]

It's pronounced differently, and thus not accepted for the listening exercise.

[Donna372398]

Why is 'andre' used and not 'annen'? 'Someone else' refers to a singular person.