Translation:Would he have published it if he had the money?
My comment here is not a quibble with DL. I agree with the translation. It explains to me a reason for some of the misuse of 'would' in English. It is a result of mixing of the different uses of the subjunctive in English and German. "Would he have..'' is not subjunctive in English (it is just an interrogative) while 'hätte' is so, in German. For the second part of the sentence 'if he had the money' is in the subjunctive, as is 'wenn er das Geld hätte'. Unfortunately, some people would write "if he would have .." for the latter part.
Correct, “had had” [past perfect] does not mean the same as “had” [simple past].
The second translation is indeed correct. The first translation, “Would he have published it if he had had the money.” which would be ‘Hätte er es veröffentlicht, wenn er das Geld gehabt hätte?’, is incorrect.
In my opinion, it's the same in this case. If you remove the "have", there is a difference. The sentence becomes "Would he publish it if he....". "Had had" now indicates the opportunity is gone, and "had" indicates that the opportunity is still there if, for instance, somebody gifted him a million dollars in the next five minutes. If it's still "would he have", the opportunity is gone regardless, and I don't see a difference between "had had" and "had".
That's an insightful point, and it's true that, in the scenario in which he would have used the money to publish it, both “had had”=‘gehabt hätte’ and “had”=‘hätte’ have the same implication of lost opportunity, but even then, because both languages offer equivalent choices, “had had” would be a better translation, being closer to the original.
However, the original sentence can also describe other scenarios in which the condition described by the protasis may still be valid in the present. For example, perhaps ‘es’ refers to an exposé of a scandal which the first ‘er’ (the author, editor, or would-be publisher of the exposé) didn't publish because the second ‘he’ (the subject of the exposé) can't currently be proven to have the money tied to the scandal.
There is a lot of very learned explanations above which I am afraid is way above my comprehension. As far as I understand, hätten="would have" and not "had". Hatten = had. If somebody can please explain to me why "hätte" at the end of the sentence and not "hatte", I would really apreciate it.
Duo gives as translation for "Hätte er es veröffentlicht, wenn er das Geld hätte?" : "Would he have published it if he had had the money?". So it includes 'the" but it has "had had" instead of "would have", but I cannot imagine that this makes a difference for the use of "the".
The English sentence I'm seeing ("Would he have published it if he had the money?") is grammatically incorrect.
You can ask: "Would he have published it if he had had the money?" or "Would he publish it if he had the money?"
It doesn't make sense to ask whether having the money now, in the present, would cause him to retroactively have published it in the past.
Of course, "had had" sounds clunky, so we'd really say "... if he'd had the money?"