Learn Hardcore Danish: Hvis jeg havde mere tid, ville jeg læse flere bøger på biblioteket. - If I had more time, I would read more books at the library.

Hvis jeg havde mere tid, ville jeg læse flere bøger på biblioteket.

If I had more time, I would read more books at the library.

Breakdown of Hvis jeg havde mere tid, ville jeg læse flere bøger på biblioteket.

Elon.io is an online learning platform

We have an entire course teaching Danish grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Danish now

Questions & Answers about Hvis jeg havde mere tid, ville jeg læse flere bøger på biblioteket.

Why is havde (past tense) used instead of har (present) when we’re talking about now or the future?

Danish uses the past tense in if-clauses to show that the situation is unreal or hypothetical, just like English does:

English: If I had more time, I would read…
Danish: Hvis jeg havde mere tid, ville jeg læse…

So:

har = have (real, present fact)
- Hvis jeg har tid, læser jeg… = If I have time (and I sometimes do), I read…
havde = had (unreal, hypothetical)
- Hvis jeg havde tid, ville jeg læse… = If I had time (but I don’t), I would read…

Using havde signals that this is an imaginary or contrary‑to‑fact situation.

What does ville do in ville jeg læse? Is this a future tense?

Ville is the past form of vil, and here it functions as a conditional (“would”), not a simple future.

Jeg vil læse = I will read / I want to read (real intention or future)
Jeg ville læse = I would read (hypothetical, dependent on a condition)

In this sentence:

Hvis jeg havde mere tid, *ville jeg læse flere bøger…
= If I had more time, I **would read more books…*

So ville + infinitive (læse) is the typical way to express “would + verb” in Danish.

Why is the word order ville jeg læse and not jeg ville læse after the comma?

Because the sentence starts with a subordinate clause (Hvis jeg havde mere tid), the main clause that follows has inversion: the verb comes before the subject.

Basic rule in Danish main clauses:

When an adverbial (time, place, condition, etc.) comes first, the finite verb comes second, and the subject comes third.

Compare:

Normal order (no fronted clause):
- Jeg ville læse flere bøger.
  (Subject jeg before verb ville)
With a fronted conditional clause:
- Hvis jeg havde mere tid, *ville jeg læse flere bøger.
  (“Hvis jeg havde mere tid” counts as the first element; then the verb *ville, then subject jeg)

So ville jeg is required by Danish word-order rules in this structure.

Can I also say Jeg ville læse flere bøger på biblioteket, hvis jeg havde mere tid? Does the word order change?

Yes, that sentence is perfectly correct, and the word order does change:

Hvis jeg havde mere tid, *ville jeg læse flere bøger…
(subordinate clause first → inversion: *ville jeg)
Jeg ville læse flere bøger på biblioteket, hvis jeg havde mere tid.
(main clause first → normal order: jeg ville)

When the main clause comes first, you keep the usual subject–verb order: Jeg ville læse…

What’s the difference between mere and flere? Why is it mere tid but flere bøger?

Danish distinguishes between countable and uncountable nouns:

flere = more (of something countable, plural)
mere = more (of something often uncountable, or in general)

In this sentence:

tid (time) is treated as uncountable → mere tid (more time)
bøger (books) are countable → flere bøger (more books)

Other examples:

mere vand (more water), mere kaffe (more coffee)
flere mennesker (more people), flere biler (more cars)

Why is it på biblioteket and not i biblioteket?

På and i are both translated as “at/in” in English, but they’re used differently.

For many institutions and public places, Danish uses på:

på biblioteket = at the library
på universitetet = at the university
på arbejde = at work
på hospitalet = at the hospital

I is more physical/inside-a-building:

i huset = in the house
i rummet = in the room

So på biblioteket means “at the library” as an institution or place you go to, not literally “inside the physical interior of the building”.
I biblioteket is possible but would sound like describing physical location “inside the library room,” and is much less common in this general reading context.

Why is it på biblioteket (definite) and not something like på bibliotek or på et bibliotek?

på biblioteket = at the library (definite, a known or typical library)
på et bibliotek = at a library (some library, not specified)

Danish almost never says på bibliotek without an article; that sounds incomplete or wrong.

In a general statement like “I would read more books at the library,” you normally use the definite form:

It can mean “at my local library” or “at the library in general, where people go to read.”
It’s similar to English: we usually say “at the library,” not “at library.”

You could say på et bibliotek if you specifically meant “at some library or other, not necessarily a specific one.” But in a generic habit-like statement, på biblioteket is the natural choice.

Could I say Hvis jeg havde mere tid, læste jeg flere bøger på biblioteket without ville?

This is not a natural way to express the hypothetical meaning in modern Danish.

Hvis jeg havde mere tid, ville jeg læse… = If I had more time, I would read… (hypothetical)
Hvis jeg har tid, læser jeg… = If I have time, I (usually) read… (real, habitual)

Using læste (past tense) in the main clause without ville doesn’t give the normal conditional meaning; it sounds more like a stylistic or old-fashioned structure and can be confusing.

To express “would,” you should use a modal:

ville læse (would read)
kunne læse (could read), depending on the nuance.

What’s the difference between hvis and når? Could I use når here instead?

hvis = if (condition, uncertain / hypothetical)
når = when (time, something you expect or know will happen)

In this sentence:

Hvis jeg havde mere tid, ville jeg læse…
= If I had more time (but I don’t), I would read… → condition, hypothetical → hvis is correct.

If you used når, you would be talking about something that actually happens or will happen, not a pure hypothetical:

Når jeg har mere tid, vil jeg læse flere bøger…
= When I have more time, I will read more books… (I expect it to happen)

So når doesn’t fit the unreal/contrary-to-fact meaning of the original sentence.

How would I say “If I had had more time, I would have read more books at the library” (past unreal conditional) in Danish?

You use havde haft (past perfect) in the if‑clause, and ville have læst (conditional perfect) in the main clause:

Hvis jeg havde haft mere tid, ville jeg have læst flere bøger på biblioteket.

Structure:

havde haft = had had
ville have læst = would have read

This refers to a hypothetical situation in the past, not now.

Can I use other modal verbs instead of ville here, like kunne or skulle? How would that change the meaning?

Yes, you can, but the meaning changes slightly:

ville = would (willingness or intention in a hypothetical situation)
- Hvis jeg havde mere tid, *ville jeg læse…
  = If I had more time, I *would read…
kunne = could (ability or possibility)
- Hvis jeg havde mere tid, *kunne jeg læse flere bøger…
  = If I had more time, I *could read more books (it would be possible for me)
skulle = should / would be supposed to
- Hvis jeg havde mere tid, *skulle jeg læse flere bøger…
  = If I had more time, I *ought to / should read more books (a duty or recommendation)

In your original sentence, ville is the most natural choice to express a simple “would read” hypothetical.