Hvis gulvet ikke havde været så vådt, ville jeg ikke have taget moppen frem.

Because this is a counterfactual past condition: it talks about something that did not happen in the past.

In Danish, the pattern is often:

• Hvis + past perfect for the unreal condition
• ville have + past participle for the unreal result

So:

• Hvis gulvet ikke havde været så vådt = If the floor had not been so wet
• ville jeg ikke have taget moppen frem = I would not have taken out the mop

Here, havde været is the past perfect of at være.

Because the sentence describes an imagined result in the past, not a real past event.

Compare:

• tog = a real action in the past
• ville tage = often sounds like future-in-the-past or a more general hypothetical action
• ville have taget = would have taken, which is the standard form for an unreal past result

So ville jeg ikke have taget matches English I would not have taken.

In Danish main clauses, the finite verb usually comes in second position. After that, the subject often comes next if something else has started the clause.

In the second half of the sentence:

• ville = finite verb
• jeg = subject
• ikke = negation

So the order is:

• ville jeg ikke have taget ...

This is normal Danish word order for a main clause.

Because the sentence starts with a subordinate clause:

• Hvis gulvet ikke havde været så vådt

When a subordinate clause comes first, the following main clause uses inversion in Danish: the finite verb comes before the subject.

So:

• With no fronted clause: Jeg ville ikke have taget moppen frem.
• After the hvis-clause: ... ville jeg ikke have taget moppen frem.

This is a very important Danish word order rule.

Because gulvet is a neuter noun.

The noun is:

• et gulv = a floor

When an adjective describes a singular neuter noun, it usually takes -t:

• et vådt gulv = a wet floor

The same agreement appears here after været:

• gulvet havde været så vådt

So vådt agrees with gulvet.

Gulvet is the definite form of gulv:

• et gulv = a floor
• gulvet = the floor

Danish usually adds definiteness as an ending:

• -en for many common-gender nouns
• -et for many neuter nouns

Since gulv is neuter, the definite singular is gulvet.

Moppen is the definite singular form of moppe:

• en moppe = a mop
• moppen = the mop

So the sentence is talking about the mop, not just a mop.

This is very typical in Danish, where the definite article is usually attached to the end of the noun instead of being a separate word like English the.

At tage noget frem means to take something out, bring something out, or get something out for use.

So:

• tage moppen frem = take out the mop / get the mop out

The word frem often adds the idea of bringing something forward, out, or into use.

It is a very common Danish verb combination, similar to phrasal verbs in English.

It does not have to stay together as one solid unit.

In Danish, combinations like tage ... frem often allow the object to sit between the verb and the particle/adverb:

• tage moppen frem

But with a pronoun, Danish often prefers:

• tage den frem = take it out

So this behaves a bit like an English phrasal verb.

In modern Danish comma rules, many writers place a comma before a subordinate clause, but not necessarily after it in the way English punctuation might suggest. You may see:

• Hvis gulvet ikke havde været så vådt, ville jeg ikke have taget moppen frem.

That comma is standard and natural.

The main point for learners is that word order, not punctuation, tells you the structure:

• first the hvis-clause
• then the main clause with inversion: ville jeg

It is perfectly natural and standard Danish.

The structure is a normal way to express:

• an unreal condition in the past
• and its unreal consequence

So it is not especially literary or old-fashioned. It is a very useful pattern to learn for everyday Danish.

Not with exactly the same meaning.

• ville jeg ikke have taget moppen frem = I would not have taken out the mop
• kunne jeg ikke have taget moppen frem would mean something more like could I not have taken out the mop? or in other contexts I could not have taken out the mop

So ville is the correct choice for the intended hypothetical result.

The sentence follows this very useful pattern:

• Hvis + past perfect, ville + subject + ikke + have + past participle

More generally:

• Hvis X havde + past participle, ville Y have + past participle.

In this sentence:

1. Hvis gulvet ikke havde været så vådt

   • unreal past condition

2. ville jeg ikke have taget moppen frem

   • unreal past result

This is the Danish equivalent of English:

• If ... had ..., ... would have ...

You could, but it would usually change the meaning.

• Hvis gulvet ikke var så vådt = If the floor were not so wet / if the floor wasn’t so wet

  • this can sound more like a present or less specifically past hypothetical

• Hvis gulvet ikke havde været så vådt = If the floor had not been so wet

  • clearly refers to a past situation

Since the result clause is ville jeg ikke have taget, the past perfect havde været is the best match.

There are two past participles here:

• været from at være
• taget from at tage

They are used with auxiliaries:

• havde været
• have taget

So if you are analyzing the verb forms:

• havde = auxiliary
• været = past participle
• ville = modal verb
• have = auxiliary infinitive
• taget = past participle