Om löken blir skalad nu, kan jag hacka den senare.

Om means if here. It introduces a condition:

• Om löken blir skalad nu = If the onion gets peeled now
• kan jag hacka den senare = I can chop it later

So the whole sentence is a typical if-clause + main clause pattern.

Löken is the definite form of lök.

• en lök = an onion
• löken = the onion

Swedish often attaches the definite ending directly to the noun. Since the meaning is about a specific onion, Swedish uses löken.

Den means it and refers back to löken.

Since lök is an en-word (common gender), the pronoun is den:

• en lök → den
• ett äpple → det

So:

• kan jag hacka den senare = can I chop it later

Blir skalad is a passive construction. Literally, it is something like gets peeled or is being peeled.

• blir = becomes / gets
• skalad = peeled

Together, blir skalad shows that the onion is receiving the action, not doing it.

Compare:

• Jag skalar löken = I peel the onion
• Löken blir skalad = The onion gets peeled / is peeled

Yes. That is also correct.

Swedish has two common ways to make the passive:

• bli + participle: löken blir skalad
• -s passive: löken skalas

Both can mean something like the onion is being peeled / gets peeled.

The version with blir skalad can sometimes feel a bit more like a change or event, while skalas is often more neutral and compact.

This is an important difference:

• blir skalad = gets peeled / is being peeled
  
  • focuses on the action or process
• är skalad = is peeled
  
  • focuses on the resulting state

So:

• Löken blir skalad nu = the peeling happens now
• Löken är skalad nu = the onion is already peeled now

Because the sentence begins with a fronted if-clause:

• Om löken blir skalad nu, ...

In Swedish main clauses, the finite verb usually comes in second position. This is the V2 rule.

So after the opening clause, the main clause becomes:

• kan jag hacka den senare

not

• jag kan hacka den senare

You can think of it like this:

• Normal main clause: Jag kan hacka den senare
• After putting the if-clause first: Om ..., kan jag hacka den senare

Swedish usually does not need an explicit word like then in this kind of sentence.

English often says:

• If the onion is peeled now, then I can chop it later

Swedish normally just says:

• Om löken blir skalad nu, kan jag hacka den senare

You could sometimes add då in other contexts, but it is often unnecessary.

Yes. Kan is the present tense of kunna, which often means can / be able to.

Here it expresses possibility or ability:

• kan jag hacka den senare = I can chop it later

Depending on context, English might also say I’ll be able to chop it later, but Swedish often keeps kan.

That is very normal in Swedish. Swedish often uses the present tense when the future meaning is clear from context or from time words like nu and senare.

In this sentence:

• blir = present tense
• kan = present tense
• nu = now
• senare = later

Even though part of the meaning is future-oriented, Swedish does not need a separate future tense here.

Senare means later.

So:

• nu = now
• senare = later

In the sentence, it contrasts with nu:

• Om löken blir skalad nu = If the onion gets peeled now
• kan jag hacka den senare = I can chop it later

Skalad is the past participle of skala (to peel), and here it agrees with löken.

Because löken is:

• singular
• common gender (en-word)

the form is skalad.

For comparison:

• en lök blir skalad
• ett äpple blir skalat
• äpplena blir skalade

So the ending changes depending on gender and number.

Yes, it is grammatical and understandable. A native speaker might also choose slightly different wording depending on context, for example:

• Om löken skalas nu, kan jag hacka den senare.
• Om någon skalar löken nu, kan jag hacka den senare.

The original sentence is still perfectly valid, especially if the speaker wants a passive meaning like if the onion gets peeled now rather than naming who peels it.