Breakdown of Om hon hade läst meddelandet, skulle hon ha kommit i tid.
ha
to have
i
in
läsa
to read
om
if
hon
she
komma
to come
meddelandet
the message
tiden
the time
skulle
would
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Swedish grammar and vocabulary.
Questions & Answers about Om hon hade läst meddelandet, skulle hon ha kommit i tid.
What tenses are used in this sentence, and what do they express?
- hade läst is the pluperfect (past perfect): had read.
- skulle ha kommit is the conditional perfect: would have come.
Together they express a counterfactual past: a condition that did not happen in the past and its unreal past result.
Why is it "skulle hon ha kommit" and not "hon skulle ha kommit" after the comma?
Swedish main clauses are verb-second (V2). When a subordinate clause comes first (here, the om-clause), the finite verb in the following main clause inverts with the subject. So you get skulle hon rather than hon skulle.
Is the comma after the if-clause required?
It is standard and very common to place a comma when a subordinate clause comes first: Om …, skulle .... Some modern styles allow omitting it, but including the comma is safe and widely taught. Do not put a comma inside the clause (e.g., not after om).
Can I put the main clause first?
Yes: Hon skulle ha kommit i tid om hon hade läst meddelandet. In that order, you typically don’t use a comma between the clauses.
Can I drop om and use inversion instead?
Yes. This is idiomatic and a bit more formal: Hade hon läst meddelandet, skulle hon ha kommit i tid. Here hade hon läst stands in for Om hon hade läst.
Could I say "Om hon läste meddelandet, skulle hon komma i tid"? What’s the difference?
That version uses a present/future hypothetical:
- Om hon läste meddelandet, skulle hon komma i tid. If she read the message (now/whenever), she would come on time.
- Your original uses a past counterfactual: Om hon hade läst meddelandet, skulle hon ha kommit i tid. If she had read the message (but she didn’t), she would have come on time.
Why is it kommit and not kommen?
Swedish uses the supine with ha/har/hade to form perfect tenses. The supine of komma is kommit. Kommen is the past participle and is used with vara/bli or as an adjective in limited, often formal/archaic, contexts. So here only kommit works: skulle ha kommit.
Why does meddelandet end with -t?
Because meddelande is a neuter noun (an ett-word). The definite singular is formed with -et:
- ett meddelande → meddelandet (the message).
Why is it the definite "meddelandet" and not the indefinite "meddelande"?
The sentence implies a specific, known message she was supposed to read, so Swedish uses the definite form meddelandet. If you meant any message in general, you’d use the indefinite, but that would change the nuance.
Could I say "Om hon hade läst meddelandet, hade hon kommit i tid"?
Yes. Swedish often allows a symmetrical pattern hade … hade … for past counterfactuals:
- Om hon hade läst meddelandet, hade hon kommit i tid. It means the same as using skulle ha. Many writers prefer skulle ha because it makes the conditional force explicit.
Is "skulle kommit" acceptable instead of "skulle ha kommit"?
In informal speech, skulle kommit is common. In standard written Swedish, prefer the full form skulle ha kommit.
Where do I put negation or adverbs?
- In the main clause, place inte after the finite verb skulle:
…, skulle hon inte ha kommit i tid. - In the if-clause, place inte after hade:
Om hon inte hade läst meddelandet, … Other sentence adverbs (alltid, kanske, nog) follow the same placement.
Why "i tid" and not something like "på tid"?
i tid is the fixed idiom for on time: komma i tid.
Do not use på tid here. Note also that på tiden means about time/high time, as in Det var på tiden (About time!).
Can I add så in the main clause?
Yes, optional and a bit more informal:
Om hon hade läst meddelandet, så skulle hon ha kommit i tid.
Inversion still applies: skulle hon, not hon skulle.
Can I replace meddelandet with a pronoun?
Yes, if the message is already known in context:
Om hon hade läst det, skulle hon ha kommit i tid.
Use det because meddelande is an ett-word.
Is there any Swedish subjunctive involved here?
Modern Swedish mostly uses indicative forms and the modal skulle for hypotheticals. There’s a vestigial past subjunctive in a few verbs (e.g., vore), but your sentence uses the regular pluperfect plus skulle ha rather than a special subjunctive form.
Are there synonyms for om here?
You can use ifall (or ifall att) with essentially the same meaning:
Ifall hon hade läst meddelandet, skulle hon ha kommit i tid.
om is the most neutral and common.
Any quick pattern to remember these conditionals?
- Real/likely (present/future): Om hon läser …, kommer hon …
- Hypothetical (present/future): Om hon läste …, skulle hon komma …
- Counterfactual past: Om hon hade läst …, skulle hon ha kommit …