I might be mistaken here, but the use of "skulle (ha varit)" in 2. is something I consider very Swedish. It's probably something we've borrowed and might be more common and accepted other places than where I live. I understand 2. and by extension 1. by going through Swedish. The literal meaning of the sentences is different in Norwegian. 2. is passable, but 1. doesn't quite work for me. 3. is probably the only proper way to express this in Norwegian.1. Det skulle være hyggelig å få det til en annen gang
2. Det skulle ha vært hyggelig å få det til en annen gang
3. Det hadde vært hyggelig å få det til en annen gang
Is there a difference in the meaning of these three sentences?
I am not a native English speaker, so I can't really comment on your translation. But I don't think the translation of this sentence has been quite correct, throughout this thread. "Få det til" implies that something was planned, or at least seriously discussed, but not carried out. I would prefer "to make it", instead of "to do"."Det hadde vært hyggelig å få det til en annen gang" = Had this been nice to do, but for another time
This is probably a matter of personal preference. For me, "ville vært" works fine, but not "ville ha vært". At least to me, adding "ha" implies that the event is less likely to happen: "it would have been nice" instead of "it would be nice".Can you use "ville (ha) vært" instead, such as "Det ville ha vært hyggelig..."? Just wondering.
Likelihood is indeed an element when it comes to what kind of verbal complement we choose for modals, but I think you got it the wrong way because the inclusion/omission of ha does not really have an impact on this. With your description, it seems that you would say that c) below is the unlikely one and then you would group a) and b) together. But it is in fact b) and c) that mean the same thing. And in terms of likelihood: a) expresses a possible fatal outcome of an event (using an infinitive), b) and c) express a fatal outcome of an event that is no longer possible (using a past participle). If you are able to differentiate between the likelihood of impossible events, I would like to know howThis is probably a matter of personal preference. For me, "ville vært" works fine, but not "ville ha vært". At least to me, adding "ha" implies that the event is less likely to happen: "it would have been nice" instead of "it would be nice".
Thank you so very much!Thanks for your comments, myšlenka. I agree with your conclusions - in your context. But my (or Icetrance's) examples are from a different context, and compares different phrases ("hadde vært" instead of "ville være").
Take your example "b) Han advarte om at det ville vært farlig." I agree that this describes a situation that is no longer possible.
But "ville vært" can also express something else. For example, "Det ville vært godt med en kald øl." This is something you say before you go to the fridge to get some beer; it is certainly not a situation that is no longer possible, but it is a way to express an intention, a request or a wish.
Icetrance's question was about these options:
A. Det hadde vært hyggelig å få det til en annen gang.
B. Det ville vært hyggelig å få det til en annen gang.
C. Det ville ha vært hyggelig å få det til en annen gang.
I believe these sentences are closer to my beer example: they express an intention for the future (we'll make it another time!). But they are ambigous. The sentences could also mean that this is no longer possible (it would have been nice, but it is impossible).
I thought that the second interpretation would be somewhat more likely for sentence C than for A and B. But, again, that may just be me. In any case, the way it is said (intonation etc) will be important to understand the meaning of these sentences.