Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Han trodde at reisen skulle ha vært en bedre opplevelse. - He thought that the trip should have been a better experience.

skulle – past of skal, often used for:
- future in the past (“was going to / would”)
- obligation / expectation (“was supposed to”)
ha vært – ha
- past participle vært (perfect infinitive), meaning “have been”.

Together, skulle ha vært expresses something that was expected, intended, or hypothetically true in the past, but didn’t actually happen (or at least didn’t live up to expectations).

So:

reisen skulle ha vært en bedre opplevelse ≈
“the trip was supposed to have been a better experience” /
“the trip would have been a better experience (than it actually was)”.

Grammatically, this is the conditional perfect (or “future perfect in the past”) with a nuance of expectation that failed or was disappointed.

Why is it reisen (definite) and not just reise?

In Norwegian, using the definite form usually means you’re talking about a specific, known thing.

reise = a trip / travel (in general)
reisen = the trip (a particular trip that both speaker and listener know about)

In Han trodde at reisen skulle ha vært en bedre opplevelse, the idea is:

He had a particular trip in mind (maybe the one he just went on).
So Norwegian uses the definite: reisen.

If you said:

Han trodde at en reise skulle ha vært en bedre opplevelse,
that would feel more like “He thought that a trip would have been a better experience”
– much more general and less natural in this context.

Why do we use en bedre opplevelse with en, but reisen without a separate article?

Norwegian can mark definiteness in two ways:

Separate article + noun (indefinite)
- en opplevelse = “an experience”
Suffix article (definite)
- reise → reisen = “the trip”

In this sentence:

reisen is definite because we’re talking about that specific trip.
en bedre opplevelse is indefinite because it’s about the type or quality of experience, not a specific “experience” that both people already know about.

So:

reisen = “the trip” (that particular one)
en bedre opplevelse = “a better experience” (a more positive experience in general)

Why do we need both ha and vært? Couldn’t we just say skulle vært?

There are three slightly different possibilities:

skulle være
- modal + bare infinitive
- ≈ “was supposed to be / would be” (at some point in time)
skulle vært
- modal + past participle (common in speech)
- ≈ “should have been / ought to have been”; often evaluative or complaining.
skulle ha vært
- modal + ha
  - past participle (perfect infinitive)
- clear “would have been / was supposed to have been” referring to a completed state in the past.

Skulle ha vært is the more complete, standard way to form the “would have been / was supposed to have been” idea, especially in writing.

Skulle vært is very common in spoken Norwegian and often carries a tone of criticism:

Det skulle vært bedre. – “It should have been better.”

In your sentence, skulle ha vært matches the English “would have been / was supposed to have been” very well, and is stylistically neutral.

What is the difference between skulle ha vært and ville ha vært in this sentence?

Both can sometimes translate as “would have been,” but they have different nuances:

skulle ha vært
- Focus on plans, expectations, or obligations.
- Often implies: “It was planned / expected to be better, but it wasn’t.”
ville ha vært
- More hypothetical / conditional, like English “would have been” in “If X, it would have been Y.”
- Focus on what would happen under certain conditions, not necessarily on a plan.

Compare:

Han trodde at reisen skulle ha vært en bedre opplevelse.
He believed the trip was supposed to have been a better experience (than it turned out to be).
Han trodde at reisen ville ha vært en bedre opplevelse hvis været hadde vært bra.
He thought the trip would have been a better experience if the weather had been good.

In your original sentence, skulle ha vært nicely captures disappointed expectations.

Could we leave out at here, like we often drop “that” in English?

No, not normally.

In English, you can say:

“He thought that the trip would have been…”
“He thought the trip would have been…”

In Norwegian, the subordinating conjunction at is usually required in this kind of sentence:

Han trodde at reisen skulle ha vært en bedre opplevelse. ✅
Han trodde reisen skulle ha vært en bedre opplevelse. ❌ (sounds wrong/unfinished)

There are cases where at can be omitted (often in very informal speech or with certain verbs/structures), but with tro + a full clause like this, you keep “at” in standard Norwegian.

What’s the word order rule inside the at‑clause: reisen skulle ha vært? Why not skulle reisen ha vært?

Norwegian word order differs between:

main clauses (independent sentences)
subordinate clauses (introduced by at, fordi, hvis, når, som, etc.)

In a typical subordinate clause, Norwegian uses:

Subject – (modals) – other verbs – objects/complements

So:

reisen (subject)
skulle (modal verb)
ha vært (perfect infinitive of være)
en bedre opplevelse (complement)

Hence:

… at reisen skulle ha vært en bedre opplevelse. ✅

If you said … at skulle reisen ha vært …, it would sound ungrammatical in standard Norwegian.

The “verb-second” (V2) rule you may have learned (verb in second position) mainly applies to main clauses. Subordinate clauses like this one follow a more fixed Subject–Verb–… order.

Could we say Han hadde trodd at reisen skulle ha vært en bedre opplevelse instead? What changes?

Yes, you can, but the timeline shifts.

Han trodde at …
Simple past: “He thought that …” (describing a past belief or expectation)
Han hadde trodd at …
Past perfect: “He had thought that …” (his belief existed before some other past reference point)

Example contrast:

Da reisen var over, trodde han at reisen skulle ha vært en bedre opplevelse.
“When the trip was over, he thought (then) that the trip was supposed to have been a better experience.”
Da han så resultatet, hadde han trodd at reisen skulle ha vært en bedre opplevelse.
“When he saw the result, he had thought (earlier) that the trip was supposed to have been a better experience.”

So hadde trodd sets his belief further back in the past relative to another past event.

Why is it trodde and not tenkte or syntes? Don’t all of these mean “thought”?

Norwegian has several verbs that translate as “think,” but they’re used differently:

tro (past: trodde)
- “believe / think (that something is true, but you’re not 100% sure)”
- Used for beliefs, assumptions, expectations.
tenke (past: tenkte)
- “think” in the sense of using your mind, considering, having thoughts.
- More about the process of thinking than belief.
synes (past: syntes)
- “think” as in “have an opinion,” especially based on experience.
- Very close to “I find / I feel / in my opinion.”

In your sentence, it’s about what he believed / expected about the trip, not just that he was thinking, and not so much his opinion after the fact. So:

Han trodde at reisen skulle ha vært en bedre opplevelse. ✅
“He believed / expected that the trip would have been a better experience.”

Tenkte or syntes would slightly change the nuance and sound less natural in this exact structure.

Why is it en bedre opplevelse and not something like mer god opplevelse?

Norwegian, like English, mostly forms comparatives with special comparative forms, not with mer + adjective for common short adjectives.

god → bedre (good → better)
dårlig → verre (bad → worse)

So:

en god opplevelse – a good experience
en bedre opplevelse – a better experience

Saying mer god opplevelse would be incorrect; you need the irregular comparative bedre.

Mer + adjective is used with many longer adjectives:

interessant → mer interessant – more interesting
komplisert → mer komplisert – more complicated

But god is irregular and uses bedre.

Is there any difference between using reise and tur here?

Both reise and tur can translate as “trip,” but they’re used a bit differently:

reise
- More general, often longer journeys or the act of travelling.
- Slightly more formal/neutral.
tur
- Often shorter, concrete outings or trips: a hike, a walk, a little excursion, a holiday trip.
- Very common in everyday speech.

You could say:

Han trodde at turen skulle ha vært en bedre opplevelse.

This would be natural if you’re talking about a more specific, maybe shorter trip (a holiday, a weekend away, a tour, etc.).

Reisen sounds a bit more neutral or slightly more formal; turen sounds a bit more everyday and concrete. Both can fit, depending on context.

Can I move the at‑clause to the front, like in English “That the trip would have been a better experience, he thought”?

Yes, grammatically you can, but it sounds formal and unusual in everyday speech:

At reisen skulle ha vært en bedre opplevelse, trodde han.

This is more like a literary or stylistic variation. The normal, neutral word order is:

Han trodde at reisen skulle ha vært en bedre opplevelse.

In spoken Norwegian, you would almost always stick with the original order.