Breakdown of Ef við hefðum séð hrunið fyrir, hefðum við afstýrt því.
það
it / there (existential) / the one (n)
við
we
hafa
to have
ef
if
sjá fyrir
to foresee
hrunið
the collapse
afstýra
to avert
Questions & Answers about Ef við hefðum séð hrunið fyrir, hefðum við afstýrt því.
Why is hefðum used in both halves of the sentence if the English translation uses 'had' and then 'would have'?
In Icelandic past counterfactual conditionals, the past subjunctive of hafa (hefði, hefðum, etc.) is often used in both clauses. In the ef (if) clause, it translates to 'had'. In the main clause, it translates to 'would have'. You could also use myndum hafa in the main clause, but repeating the subjunctive form of hafa is shorter and very natural in Icelandic.
What triggers the word order in the second half of the sentence (hefðum við instead of við hefðum)?
How does the phrase sjá fyrir work, and why is fyrir placed after hrunið?
Sjá eitthvað fyrir is a phrasal verb meaning 'to foresee something'. The word fyrir acts as an adverbial particle here. In Icelandic, these particles often separate from the verb and move to the end of the clause, sandwiching the object (hrunið) right between the verb and the particle.
Why does the sentence end with the dative pronoun því when it refers to hrunið, which was accusative earlier?
Pronouns must take the case dictated by the verb that directly governs them in their specific clause. While sjá takes the accusative case (which is why we see hrunið in the first half), the verb afstýra (to avert or prevent) governs the dative case. Therefore, the pronoun replacing 'the collapse' must be the dative því.
Learn Ef við hefðum séð hrunið fyrir, hefðum við afstýrt því and more in Icelandic
All course content and exercises are completely free — no paywalls, no trial periods, no signup needed.
- ✓ Practice with interactive exercises
- ✓ Track your progress with spaced repetition
- ✓Learn at your own pace — completely free