Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Vi kunne ha kommet tidligere hvis bussen ikke hadde vært så langsom. - We could have arrived earlier if the bus had not been so slow.

Kunne = past tense of kan (can → could).
Ha kommet = perfect infinitive (literally “to have come”):
- ha = to have
- kommet = past participle of komme (to come).

So the structure is:
modal (past) + ha + past participle
→ kunne ha kommet = could have come / could have arrived.

It’s used for unrealized possibilities in the past, just like in English: “We could have come (but we didn’t).”

Why is it kunne ha kommet and not ville ha kommet?

Both are possible in Norwegian, but they mean different things:

Kunne ha kommet = could have come
– focuses on possibility/ability that existed but didn’t happen.
In this sentence: we would have been able to arrive earlier if the bus hadn’t been so slow.
Ville ha kommet = would have come
– focuses on intention or what would have happened if conditions were different.
Example: Jeg ville ha kommet hvis jeg hadde visst det.
I would have come if I had known.

In your sentence, it’s about a missed possibility (arriving earlier), not our willingness, so kunne ha kommet is more natural.

Why do we need kommet and not just komme after ha?

After ha (have) you must use the past participle, not the infinitive:

Infinitive: komme (to come)
Past participle: kommet (come in “have come”)

So:

Vi har kommet. – We have come / We have arrived.
Vi kunne ha kommet. – We could have come.

Here ha kommet is the perfect infinitive, so kommet is required.
✗ Vi kunne ha komme is ungrammatical.

Why is it kunne ha kommet and not just kunne kommet?

Both forms exist, but they’re slightly different:

Kunne ha kommet is the full form and is always correct:
Vi kunne ha kommet tidligere …
Kunne kommet is a colloquial shortening that many Norwegians use in speech and informal writing:
- Vi kunne kommet tidligere …

In standard, careful writing and in learning contexts, kunne ha kommet is the safer choice.
Meaning-wise here they are the same; the difference is mostly style and formality.

What tense is hadde vært, and why is it used instead of var?

Hadde vært is the pluperfect (past perfect) of å være (to be).

var = simple past: was
har vært = present perfect: has been
hadde vært = pluperfect: had been

In conditional sentences about a hypothetical past situation, Norwegian usually uses:

kunne/ville ha + past participle in the main clause
hadde + past participle in the if-clause

Exactly like English “could have come if the bus had not been so slow.”

So hvis bussen ikke hadde vært så langsom matches English “if the bus had not been so slow.”
Using var (if the bus wasn’t so slow) would sound more like a present/general condition, not a specific past event.

Why is the word order bussen ikke hadde vært and not bussen hadde ikke vært?

Norwegian word order in subordinate clauses (introduced by hvis, fordi, at, når, etc.) is different from main clauses.

Basic rule in a subordinate clause:

Subject + (adverbs like ikke) + verb

So here:

bussen (subject)
ikke (negation)
hadde vært (verb phrase)

→ hvis bussen ikke hadde vært så langsom

In a main clause, you would usually have:

(Verb) + subject + (adverbs)

e.g. Bussen hadde ikke vært så langsom. – The bus had not been so slow.

So the position of ikke changes depending on whether it’s a main clause or a subordinate clause.

What is the role of så in så langsom?

Here så means “so” (as in so slow), functioning as an intensifier:

langsom = slow
så langsom = so slow

Common pattern:

så + adjective = so + adjective
- så stor – so big
- så dyr – so expensive
- så langsom – so slow

Note that så can also mean “then” or “so” (therefore) in other contexts, but in your sentence it just intensifies langsomm.

Why is tidligere used instead of something like mer tidlig?

Norwegian, like English, normally uses special comparative forms of adverbs like tidlig:

tidlig = early
tidligere = earlier

You do not say ✗ mer tidlig (more early) in standard Norwegian, just as English prefers earlier over more early.

So:

Vi kom tidlig. – We arrived early.
Vi kunne ha kommet tidligere. – We could have arrived earlier.

Could tidligere be placed somewhere else, like Vi kunne ha kommet hvis bussen ikke hadde vært så langsom tidligere?

Yes, tidligere is an adverb and has some flexibility in placement, but its position can slightly change what it seems to modify:

Vi kunne ha kommet tidligere hvis bussen ikke hadde vært så langsom.
– Normal and clear: earlier clearly modifies kommet (our arrival time).
Vi kunne ha kommet hvis bussen ikke hadde vært så langsom tidligere.
– Grammatically fine, but now tidligere tends to sound like it modifies hadde vært så langsom (i.e. “had not been so slow earlier”).
That’s a different nuance.

For the intended meaning (we could have arrived earlier), the original position – after kommet – is the most natural.

Why is it bussen and not just buss?

Norwegian usually marks definiteness with a suffix on the noun:

en buss – a bus
bussen – the bus

In this sentence, we’re talking about a specific, known bus (the one we were on), so Norwegian uses the definite form:

hvis bussen ikke hadde vært så langsom
if the bus had not been so slow

Using buss without the suffix would suggest “a bus” in general, which would be odd in this context.

Why is it kunne (past) and not kan (present)?

The sentence describes a hypothetical possibility in the past. Norwegian mirrors English here:

Vi kan komme tidligere. – We can come earlier. (present/future possibility)
Vi kunne komme tidligere. – We could come earlier. (past or more hypothetical)
Vi kunne ha kommet tidligere. – We could have come earlier. (unrealized past possibility)

Because this is about something that didn’t happen in the past, you need the past form kunne + ha kommet.

Is there a form like hadde kunnet komme, and how does it differ from kunne ha kommet?

Yes, in theory you can say hadde kunnet komme:

kunnet is the past participle of kunne.

So:

Vi hadde kunnet komme tidligere …

This is grammatically correct but sounds bookish/awkward in modern Norwegian.
In practice, Norwegians strongly prefer:

Vi kunne ha kommet tidligere …

Meaning-wise, both express an unrealized past possibility, but kunne ha kommet is the normal, idiomatic form, and hadde kunnet komme is rarely used outside very formal or stylized contexts.