Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Vi skulle ha lest hele kapitlet, men vi hadde knapt tid. - We should have read the whole chapter, but we barely had time.

We should have read the whole chapter (a missed obligation / what would have been the right thing to do), and/or
We were supposed to have read the whole chapter (there was an expectation or plan that didn’t really happen).

In many real situations, both meanings overlap: there was both an expectation and a sense that this was the correct thing to do. Norwegian skulle is flexible and can express obligation, expectation, or a plan that didn’t fully work out.

How is skulle ha lest built grammatically?

It’s made of three parts:

skulle – the preterite (past) of skal, used as a modal verb.
ha – the infinitive of har (to have).
lest – the past participle of lese (to read).

Pattern: modal (preterite) + ha + past participle
This is called a perfect infinitive, and it’s used after a modal verb to show an action that was supposed to be completed before some reference point in the past.

So vi skulle ha lest = we were supposed to have read / we should have read (by that time).

What’s the difference between Vi skulle ha lest hele kapitlet and Vi burde ha lest hele kapitlet?

Both can be translated We should have read the whole chapter, but the nuance is different:

skulle ha
- Focus: expectation, plan, or agreement.
- Implies: That was the plan / assignment / what was supposed to happen.
- Example: The teacher told you to read it; that was the schedule.
burde ha
- Focus: moral, logical or practical ought to.
- Implies: It would have been a good / right idea to read it, maybe regardless of any official plan.

So:

Vi skulle ha lest hele kapitlet – It was our assignment or expected of us.
Vi burde ha lest hele kapitlet – Looking back, we recognize that it would have been the right or smart thing to do.

Why is skulle in the past tense if we are just talking about what we should have done?

Norwegian uses the past form of modals (like skulle, burde, kunne) to create this “unreal / counterfactual” sense – things that didn’t happen, or are hypothetical.

Vi skal lese kapitlet. – We are going to / supposed to read the chapter. (normal future/plan)
Vi skulle ha lest kapitlet. – We should have read the chapter (but we didn’t).

So the past tense skulle doesn’t simply mean “past time”; it marks something like “that’s what was supposed to happen, but reality was different.”

Could we say Vi skulle lese hele kapitlet instead? What would be the difference?

Yes, but it changes the meaning:

Vi skulle lese hele kapitlet
= We were supposed to read the whole chapter / We were going to read the whole chapter.
Here, lese is a simple infinitive. It usually describes a plan or intention in the past, without necessarily saying whether it happened or not.
Vi skulle ha lest hele kapitlet
= We should have read / were supposed to have read the whole chapter (by some deadline).
With ha lest (perfect infinitive), this clearly points to a missed or incomplete obligation.

So skulle lese is more neutral about the outcome; skulle ha lest emphasizes that, by now, it should already have been done (and wasn’t, or not fully).

Why is it hele kapitlet and not hele kapittel or something else?

Kapittel is a neuter noun in Norwegian. In Bokmål, it has two accepted definite forms:

kapitlet (one t)
kapittelet (two ts)

So your sentence uses the definite singular: kapitlet = the chapter.

The structure is:

hele (whole) + kapitlet (the chapter) → hele kapitlet = the whole chapter.

Key points:

You need the definite form (kapitlet/kapittelet) when you talk about a specific known chapter: hele kapitlet = the whole (of that) chapter.
You do not say hele kapittel here; that would be like saying whole chapter without the, which is ungrammatical in this context.

Where can knapt go in the sentence? Is Vi knapt hadde tid correct?

In main clauses, Norwegian generally places the finite verb in second position (the V2 rule). The normal placement of knapt is after the finite verb:

Vi hadde knapt tid. – We hardly had time. ✔

Other common options:

Vi hadde nesten ikke tid. – We almost didn’t have time. ✔

But:

Vi knapt hadde tid. – This sounds wrong in standard Norwegian main clause word order ✖

The reason: hadde is the finite verb and must be in second position. Putting knapt between vi and hadde breaks that rule. You could move an adverb first (e.g. Knapt hadde vi tid), but then the verb still stays in second place:

Knapt hadde vi tid. – Hardly did we have time. (stylistically marked, but grammatically OK)

What’s the difference between knapt, nesten ikke, and så vidt?

All three can relate to barely / hardly, but with slightly different nuance:

knapt
- Very close to hardly, scarcely.
- Vi hadde knapt tid. – We hardly had time.
- Neutral style, quite common.
nesten ikke
- Literally almost not.
- Vi hadde nesten ikke tid. – We almost didn’t have time.
- Often a bit softer than knapt, but overlap is big.
så vidt
- Literally so wide, idiomatically just barely / by the skin of our teeth.
- Vi hadde så vidt tid. – We just barely had (enough) time.
- Implies that there was enough time, but only just.

Your sentence Vi hadde knapt tid suggests: there was insufficient time, not just barely enough.

Why is it Vi hadde knapt tid (past) and not Vi har knapt hatt tid? When would you use each?

They focus on slightly different things:

Vi hadde knapt tid.
- Simple past.
- Focus on a specific past situation: at that time, we hardly had any time.
- Matches well with Vi skulle ha lest ..., which also refers to the past.
Vi har knapt hatt tid.
- Present perfect.
- Focus on the period leading up to now: up until now, we’ve hardly had time.
- Used when the lack of time is relevant to the present.

In your sentence, you’re explaining why you didn’t meet a past expectation (you didn’t read the chapter), so the simple past hadde is the most natural choice.

Can this sentence refer to a future situation? How would you say “We are supposed to read the whole chapter, but we will hardly have time”?

Your original sentence is clearly about the past.

For a future situation, you’d normally use skal + infinitive (not skulle ha), and a future time reference in the second clause. For example:

Vi skal lese hele kapitlet, men vi kommer knapt til å ha tid.
= We are going to / supposed to read the whole chapter, but we will hardly have time.

Alternatively, a bit simpler:

Vi skal lese hele kapitlet, men vi får knapt tid.
= We’re supposed to read the whole chapter, but we will hardly get (enough) time.

How would I say “We shouldn’t have read the whole chapter” in Norwegian, and how is that different from this sentence?

You would normally say:

Vi skulle ikke ha lest hele kapitlet.
or
Vi burde ikke ha lest hele kapitlet.

Nuances:

Vi skulle ikke ha lest hele kapitlet.
= We were not meant / supposed to read the whole chapter; it was against the plan or expectation.
Vi burde ikke ha lest hele kapitlet.
= It would have been better or more correct not to read the whole chapter; a moral/practical judgment after the fact.

Your original sentence:

Vi skulle ha lest hele kapitlet, men vi hadde knapt tid.
says the opposite: you were supposed to read it, but you failed (or couldn’t) because of lack of time.

What is the word order rule that puts skulle in second place and ha lest at the end?

Norwegian main clauses follow the V2 rule: the finite verb (the one inflected for tense) must be in second position.

In Vi skulle ha lest hele kapitlet:

Vi – subject (first position)
skulle – finite verb (second position, as required by V2)
ha – infinitive
lest – past participle
hele kapitlet – object

Because skulle is the finite verb, it must be second. The rest of the verb phrase (ha lest) naturally follows it and comes before the object. This is why you cannot move skulle away from second position in a normal main clause.