I dag lærer vi at bruge “hvis ... havde ..., ville ... have ...”, når vi taler om noget, der ikke skete.

Both are possible, but the word order changes because Danish follows the V2 rule in main clauses: the finite verb usually comes in the second position.

• I dag lærer vi ... = Today we are learning ...
• Vi lærer i dag ... = We are learning today ...

When I dag is placed first for emphasis, the verb lærer must come before vi.

So:

• I dag lærer vi ... is natural when the speaker wants to frame the lesson as today’s topic.
• Vi lærer i dag ... is also grammatical, but it sounds slightly less like a lesson heading.

Here lærer means learn.

The verb is at lære, which can mean both:

• to learn
• to teach

So context matters.

In I dag lærer vi at bruge ..., it clearly means Today we learn / are learning to use ...

If it meant teach, there would usually be an object, for example:

• Læreren lærer os dansk = The teacher teaches us Danish

So in this sentence, vi lærer means we are learning.

Because at lære is followed by an infinitive when you say what someone is learning to do.

• lære at bruge = learn to use
• lære at skrive = learn to write
• lære at tale = learn to speak

So:

• I dag lærer vi at bruge ... = Today we are learning to use ...

The at here is the infinitive marker, like to in English.

This is the Danish pattern for a counterfactual past condition, often called the third conditional in English.

It is used for situations that did not happen in the past.

Pattern:

• hvis
  • past perfect idea
• ville
  • have
    • past participle

Example:

• Hvis jeg havde vidst det, ville jeg have hjulpet dig.
• If I had known that, I would have helped you.

So the sentence is saying that today’s lesson is about using this structure when talking about something unreal in the past.

Because Danish uses havde in this pattern to express the unreal past condition.

For example:

• Hvis jeg havde haft tid ...
• If I had had time ...

This works like English had in if I had...

So in this conditional pattern:

• hvis introduces the condition
• havde helps show that the condition is about a past situation that did not happen

It is part of the grammar of counterfactual past statements.

Because this is how Danish usually expresses would have done.

Example:

• ville have gået = would have gone
• ville have sagt = would have said
• ville have købt = would have bought

So:

• Hvis jeg havde haft penge, ville jeg have købt den.
• If I had had money, I would have bought it.

In this structure:

• ville = would
• have
  • past participle = the completed past action

Together they correspond to English would have + past participle.

Usually, yes, in this kind of sentence.

For unreal past results:

• ville have gjort = would have done
• ville have været = would have been

However, learners should remember that Danish conditional meaning can sometimes also be expressed in other ways depending on style and context. But for the pattern in this lesson, ville have + past participle is the standard equivalent of English would have + past participle.

Because når means when in the sense of whenever / in the situations where.

Here the sentence means:

• when we talk about something that did not happen

That is a general teaching statement, not one specific past event.

Why not the others?

• når = when, whenever, in cases where
• da = when, but usually about a specific event in the past
• hvis = if

So:

• når vi taler om noget, der ikke skete = when we talk about something that didn’t happen

This is the correct choice for a general rule or lesson context.

Both der and som can introduce relative clauses in Danish, but der is very common when it is the subject of the relative clause.

Here:

• noget, der ikke skete
• literally: something that did not happen

In the relative clause, der is the thing that did not happen, so it functions like the subject.

You may also hear som in some contexts, but der is very natural here.

Because Danish punctuation normally uses commas before subordinate clauses.

In this sentence, both of these begin subordinate clauses:

• når vi taler om noget ...
• der ikke skete

So the commas help show the structure:

• main clause: I dag lærer vi at bruge ...
• subordinate clause: når vi taler om noget ...
• relative clause: der ikke skete

English comma rules are different, so this often stands out to English speakers.

It is a relative clause describing noget.

• noget = something
• der ikke skete = that didn’t happen

Together:

• noget, der ikke skete = something that did not happen

This clause narrows down what kind of something we mean: not just any thing, but an event or situation that never actually happened.

Not naturally in this sentence.

• skete = happened
• er sket = has happened

The sentence is talking about unreal past events in a general way, and skete fits that cleanly:

• noget, der ikke skete = something that did not happen

Using er sket would shift the feel toward has happened / has not happened, which is less natural here.

So skete is the idiomatic choice in this explanation sentence.

Yes, but bruge is much more common and natural in everyday teaching language.

• bruge = use
• anvende = use/apply, but more formal

So:

• lære at bruge en struktur sounds natural in class
• lære at anvende en struktur is possible, but more formal or academic

In most ordinary lessons, bruge is the better choice.

Because the sentence is referring to a pattern, not one complete example.

The dots show that other words go in the gaps.

So this is shorthand for a structure like:

• Hvis jeg havde haft tid, ville jeg have ringet.
• If I had had time, I would have called.

The pattern highlights the key pieces learners need to notice:

• hvis
• havde
• ville
• have

Yes, and that would sound very natural too, but it means something slightly different.

• I dag lærer vi at bruge ... = Today we are learning to use ...
• I dag skal vi lære at bruge ... = Today we are going to learn to use ...

The version with skal sounds a bit more like announcing the plan for the lesson.
The original version sounds more like the lesson is already underway or being presented as the topic.

It sounds like typical classroom or textbook Danish.

It is:

• clear
• grammatical
• natural for teaching
• slightly more structured than casual conversation

A teacher, textbook, worksheet, or lesson slide could all use this sentence naturally.

In everyday spontaneous speech, someone might simplify it a little, but as a lesson instruction it sounds completely normal.