Subjunctive in Conditionals (ef, hefði)

Every "if"-sentence makes a choice about how real the condition is, and Icelandic encodes that choice in the mood of the verbs. A real, open possibility uses the indicative; a hypothetical that runs against present reality uses the past subjunctive; a regret about the unchangeable past uses the pluperfect subjunctive (hefði + supine). Get the three types apart and your conditionals snap into place. The one thing that surprises English speakers most is the result clause: where English always says "would + verb," Icelandic very often uses a bare past subjunctive instead — keypti ég bíl ("I would buy a car"), not necessarily myndi ég kaupa bíl. (How to build the subjunctive forms is on the subjunctive forms page; the myndi "would" auxiliary has its own page; the deeper syntax is in complex/conditionals. Here we focus on which mood goes where.) Note from the start: ef "if" carries no accent — it is not éf.

The three conditional types at a glance

Type 1 — Real / open conditions: ef + indicative

When the condition is a live possibility — it might genuinely happen — the ef-clause stays in the indicative present, and the result clause uses whatever the meaning needs (indicative future, imperative, present). This is the everyday "if it rains, I'll stay home" type, and crucially it takes no subjunctive at all. English speakers find this one easy because it matches English most closely.

Type 2 — Present counterfactual: ef + past subjunctive

When the condition is contrary to present reality — "if I were rich" (but I'm not), "if I had the money" (but I don't) — the ef-clause goes into the past subjunctive: væri, ætti, kæmi, hefði, gæti, vissi. Despite the past form, the meaning is present/unreal, exactly like English "if I were" (not "was"). This is the same past subjunctive built on the preterite-plural stem with umlaut (voru → væri, áttu → ætti).

The result clause: bare past subjunctive vs myndi

Here is the insight that most distinguishes idiomatic Icelandic from textbook Icelandic. English has exactly one way to form the result ("would" + verb), so learners assume Icelandic always needs myndi + infinitive. It doesn't. Very often the result clause is just a bare past subjunctive that does double duty as the "would": keypti ég bíl literally is "bought I a car" but means "I would buy a car." The past subjunctive carries the conditional sense by itself.

So both of these are correct and natural:

The bare past subjunctive is often the more idiomatic choice, especially with common verbs, and it sounds tighter and more native than reflexively stacking myndi. Myndi is never wrong, but leaning on it everywhere is a learner tell. Note also that when the ef-clause comes first, the result clause typically inverts (verb before subject): ef ég ætti pening, *keypti ég bíl* — verb-second after the fronted condition.

Type 3 — Past counterfactual: ef + hefði + supine

When the condition is about an unchangeable past — "if I had known" (but I didn't), "if he had come" (but he didn't) — you go one tense deeper, to the pluperfect subjunctive: hefði + supine. Both clauses typically use hefði + supine. This is the "missed past opportunity / regret" conditional, mapping onto English "if I had known, I would have told you."

For vera-perfect verbs (motion/change of state), the pluperfect subjunctive uses væri + the agreeing participle: ef hún hefði farið alongside ef hún væri farin in stative readings — but the hefði-pattern above is the workhorse and covers the vast majority of cases.

Why this is hard for English speakers

English has the same three-way system in meaning but expresses it with much flatter morphology. Type 1 matches well ("if it rains, I'll stay"). The trouble starts at Type 2: English uses a past indicative form for the present-unreal condition ("if I had money") with only the fossil were surviving as a true subjunctive — so learners import the indicative into Icelandic (*ef ég var ríkur) where Icelandic demands the audible past subjunctive væri. And in the result clause, English's rigid "would + verb" leads learners to over-produce myndi + infinitive where a bare past subjunctive (keypti ég) is more idiomatic. Train two reflexes: (1) in a counterfactual ef-clause, never the indicative — always væri / ætti / hefði; (2) in the result, try the bare past subjunctive first, and reach for myndi only when it reads more smoothly.

Common Mistakes

Var is the past indicative; the counterfactual condition takes the past subjunctive væri (note the umlaut — voru → væri).

A real, open possibility stays in the indicative. Don't reach for the counterfactual machinery when the condition can actually happen.

When the ef-clause comes first, it fills slot 1, so the result clause puts the verb second: hefði ég, not ég hefði.

The result inverts (keypti ég), and the bare past subjunctive keypti already means "would buy" — no myndi required.

A hefði-conditional condition pairs with a hefði + supine result, not a bare past indicative.

Key Takeaways

• ef "if" has no accent. Three conditional types, distinguished by mood:
• Type 1 (real/open): ef
  • indicative present, result in indicative/imperative — ef það rignir, þá verð ég heima. No subjunctive.
• Type 2 (present counterfactual): ef
  • past subjunctive (væri, ætti, kæmi, hefði) for a condition contrary to fact now — ef ég væri ríkur…
• Type 3 (past counterfactual): ef
  • hefði + supine in both clauses, for the unchangeable past — ef ég hefði vitað það, hefði ég sagt þér.
• The result of a counterfactual is often a bare past subjunctive doing double duty as "would": keypti ég bíl = "I'd buy a car." Myndi
  • infinitive is also fine but can sound bookish.
• When the ef-clause comes first, the result clause inverts (verb-second): ef…, keypti ég…; ef…, hefði ég….
• The big English-interference error is the indicative in a counterfactual (*ef ég var ríkur); always use the past subjunctive there.