Norwegian: å skulle ha

dukaine

Senior Member
English - American
I'm mostly curious why it's in the infinitive form following a nominative pronoun. I think å skulle ha means "should have", so I'm not sure how this fits. Why is the "skulle" there? Is the "han" a typo? Thanks for the help.

Det er nok ikke så enkelt for han å skulle ha en blogger, hjemmeværende kjæreste som også vil bestemme alt av interiør, haha!
 
  • myšlenka

    Senior Member
    Norwegian
    There seem to be two questions here: one about the prounoun and one about the appearance of the verb å skulle.

    Pronoun: the distinction between nominative and oblique case forms for the pronoun han is not obligatory. That is, han can be used in all positions and is not limited to the nominative.

    Å skulle: I would personally consider the use of this verb superfluous in cases like this, but I know that some native speakers use it. Note that å skulle is a modal and thus comes with two different meaning flavours: intention or obligation. I think either works, but it can easily be removed without doing aynthing significant to the meaning.
     

    raumar

    Senior Member
    Norwegian
    I agree that "skulle" can be removed without changing the meaning much, but I think "skulle" might nevertheless add a slight nuance. In this case, "skulle" seems to express an obligation, and I wonder if it could be translated as "have to" in this sentence.

    If we remove "skulle", the translation is straightforward:
    "... ikke så enkelt for han å ha en ... kjæreste som ..." --- "... not so easy for him to have a .... girlfriend who ..."

    With "skulle", you can use the same translation as above, without "skulle". But in my opinion, we could also try something like:
    "... ikke så enkelt for han å skulle ha en ... kjæreste som ..."
    Literal, word-for-word: "... not so easy for him to have to have a .... girlfriend who ..."
    To catch the meaning better, maybe something like: "... not so easy for him to have to put up with a .... girlfriend who ..."
     

    dukaine

    Senior Member
    English - American
    I agree that "skulle" can be removed without changing the meaning much, but I think "skulle" might nevertheless add a slight nuance. In this case, "skulle" seems to express an obligation, and I wonder if it could be translated as "have to" in this sentence.

    If we remove "skulle", the translation is straightforward:
    "... ikke så enkelt for han å ha en ... kjæreste som ..." --- "... not so easy for him to have a .... girlfriend who ..."

    With "skulle", you can use the same translation as above, without "skulle". But in my opinion, we could also try something like:
    "... ikke så enkelt for han å skulle ha en ... kjæreste som ..."
    Literal, word-for-word: "... not so easy for him to have to have a .... girlfriend who ..."
    To catch the meaning better, maybe something like: "... not so easy for him to have to put up with a .... girlfriend who ..."
    Oh, I see. Skulle has so many layers to it, yeah? Thanks for the explanation!
     
    Top