Learn Hardcore Danish: Hvis vi ikke skulle på arbejde i morgen, ville vi tage i skoven. - If we did not have to go to work tomorrow, we would go to the forest.

skal på arbejde i morgen = are going to work tomorrow (a real, planned future).
skulle på arbejde i morgen (inside a hvis-clause) = had to go to work tomorrow in a hypothetical or unreal situation.

So:

Hvis vi ikke skal på arbejde i morgen, …
= If we are not going to work tomorrow (and that might actually be true), …
Hvis vi ikke skulle på arbejde i morgen, …
= If we didn’t have to go to work tomorrow (but in reality we do), …

Using skulle marks the situation as unreal or contrary to fact.

Why is ville used instead of vil?

The difference is similar to would vs will in English.

vil tage i skoven = will go to the forest (real, likely future result).
ville tage i skoven = would go to the forest (hypothetical result).

Because the hvis-clause is hypothetical (skulle), the main clause also uses the hypothetical modal ville, not vil:

Hvis vi ikke skulle på arbejde i morgen, ville vi tage i skoven.
= If we didn’t have to work tomorrow, we would go to the forest.

Both skulle and ville look like past tense. Is the sentence talking about the past or the future?

It is actually talking about a hypothetical future, not the past.

In Danish (like in English) you often use past-looking forms to talk about unreal or hypothetical situations:

English: If I *had time tomorrow, I would go*
Danish: Hvis jeg havde tid i morgen, ville jeg tage af sted.

So skulle and ville here are functioning as conditional forms, not as ordinary past tense forms. The time reference is still tomorrow (i morgen).

Can I also say: Hvis vi ikke skal på arbejde i morgen, vil vi tage i skoven? What is the difference?

Yes, that is a correct sentence, but the meaning changes slightly:

Hvis vi ikke skal på arbejde i morgen, vil vi tage i skoven.
- Realistic condition.
- Implies: it is genuinely possible that we won’t have to work tomorrow.
- Translation: If we’re not going to work tomorrow, we will go to the forest.
Hvis vi ikke skulle på arbejde i morgen, ville vi tage i skoven.
- Unreal / contrary-to-fact condition.
- Implies: in reality, we do have to work tomorrow.
- Translation: If we didn’t have to work tomorrow, we would go to the forest.

So skal / vil = real, skulle / ville = hypothetical.

Why is the word order ville vi tage and not vi ville tage?

In Danish main clauses, the finite verb (here: ville) must be in second position (the V2 rule).

When you start the sentence with something other than the subject (for example a hvis-clause), that whole element counts as the first position. The verb then has to come next, and the subject moves after the verb:

Neutral order: Vi ville tage i skoven.
(Subject vi is first; verb ville is second.)
With a fronted clause: Hvis vi ikke skulle på arbejde i morgen, ville vi tage i skoven.
- 1st position: Hvis vi ikke skulle på arbejde i morgen (whole clause)
- 2nd position: ville
- 3rd position: vi

So ville vi tage is required by Danish word-order rules.

Why does ikke come after vi and before skulle?

In a subordinate clause (one that begins with hvis, fordi, at, etc.), the typical word order is:

conjunction – subject – sentence adverbs (like ikke) – verb – …

So:

Conjunction: Hvis
Subject: vi
Negation: ikke
Verb: skulle

→ Hvis vi ikke skulle på arbejde i morgen …

In a main clause, it would often be:

Verb – subject – sentence adverb – …

for example: Vi skal ikke på arbejde i morgen. or I morgen skal vi ikke på arbejde.

So the position of ikke depends on whether you are in a main or a subordinate clause.

Why is there a comma before ville?

Because you are separating a subordinate clause from a main clause:

Subordinate clause: Hvis vi ikke skulle på arbejde i morgen
Main clause: ville vi tage i skoven.

In current Danish punctuation rules, when a subordinate clause comes first, you must put a comma between the two clauses:

Hvis …, (så) …

So the comma in Hvis vi ikke skulle på arbejde i morgen, ville vi tage i skoven. is standard and required.

Why is there no at before tage (no ville vi at tage)?

In Danish, modal verbs (like kan, skal, vil, må, bør) are followed by a bare infinitive (the infinitive without at):

Jeg kan tale dansk. (not kan at tale)
Vi skal arbejde i morgen. (not skal at arbejde)
De vil rejse til Norge. (not vil at rejse)

The same applies here:

ville tage i skoven (not ville at tage i skoven)

So after ville, you use the infinitive tage without at.

Why do we say tage i skoven and not gå i skoven?

Both are possible, but they are not used in exactly the same way.

tage i skoven literally “take (off) to the forest”.
It focuses on going there as a trip or activity. It does not specify how you travel (walk, drive, etc.). It is similar to English go to the forest in a trip sense.
gå i skoven literally “walk in the forest” or “go on foot in the forest”.
It focuses more on the movement on foot, or being inside the forest walking around.

In the sentence, you are talking about what you would do instead of working (a leisure trip), so tage i skoven is a very natural choice: we would go to the forest (for an outing).

Why is it i skoven and not til skoven?

With places like skoven, byen, biografen, Danish often uses i when you mean to go there as an activity / to be there:

tage i skoven = go to the forest (to spend time there)
tage i byen = go out into town (to hang out / party)
tage i biografen = go to the cinema

til skoven would sound more like talking about the direction or route itself and is much less common in this context. For everyday speech about going there for an outing, i skoven is the idiomatic choice.

Why do we say på arbejde and not til arbejde, and why is there no article?

på arbejde is a fixed expression meaning at work / to work in the sense of your job:

Jeg er på arbejde. = I am at work.
Jeg skal på arbejde. = I have to go to work.

Points to notice:

Preposition:
- You use på with many activities and workplaces:
  - på arbejde, på kontoret, på universitetet, på hospitalet (as staff), på fabrikken.
- til arbejde would sound more like towards work (rarely used this way) and is not the normal idiom for going to your job.
No article:
- You do not say på et arbejde or på arbejdet when you mean the general activity of working.
- på arbejde works like English at work (no article).

So skulle på arbejde i morgen means would have to go to work tomorrow / were supposed to be at work tomorrow.

Can skulle here also mean “were supposed to”? How do I know which meaning is intended?

Yes, skulle can mean both:

have to / must (obligation)
be supposed to / be scheduled to (arrangement)

In this specific hvis-sentence, both readings are very close and often overlap:

Hvis vi ikke skulle på arbejde i morgen, …
can be understood as
- If we did not have to work tomorrow, …
  and also as
- If we were not supposed to be at work tomorrow, …

Usually, context will tell you if the speaker is thinking more about duty (must) or plan (supposed to). In everyday speech, learners can safely treat skulle på arbejde here as “have to go to work / be scheduled to work” — the important point is that work tomorrow is a fixed reality they cannot change.