Breakdown of Ef ráðgjafinn hefði komið tímanlega, hefði mig ekki vantað peninginn.
ég
I
ekki
not
koma
to come
hafa
to have
vanta
to need (to lack)
peningurinn
the money
ef
if
ráðgjafinn
the advisor
tímanlega
in time
Questions & Answers about Ef ráðgjafinn hefði komið tímanlega, hefði mig ekki vantað peninginn.
Why is hefði used in both the if-clause and the main clause?
This is the standard way to form past counterfactuals in Icelandic, referring to something that didn't actually happen. You use the past subjunctive of hafa (hefði) plus the supine verb form in the ef clause, and repeat that same hefði plus supine structure in the main clause to mean 'would have'.
Why does the second part of the sentence start with the verb hefði instead of the subject mig?
Why does the main clause use mig (accusative) instead of ég (nominative) for 'I'?
The verb vanta (to lack or need) is an impersonal verb. It doesn't take a standard nominative subject. Instead, the person who lacks something is always forced into the accusative case, which is why we use mig here.
Why is peninginn also in the accusative case here?
The verb vanta is a rare Icelandic verb that requires a double accusative. Both the logical subject experiencing the lack (mig) and the object being lacked (peninginn) must be in the accusative case.
Could I place ekki directly after hefði, making it hefði ekki mig vantað?
No, because mig acts as the logical subject of this clause. When the word order is inverted and the subject is a pronoun, that pronoun must come directly after the verb, pushing the negative word ekki to the position right after the subject.
Learn Ef ráðgjafinn hefði komið tímanlega, hefði mig ekki vantað peninginn 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