Om kranen hade fungerat bättre, skulle glasen redan ha varit fyllda.

Om means if and introduces a conditional clause.

In this sentence, Om kranen hade fungerat bättre sets up the condition: what would have needed to be true for the rest of the sentence to happen.

So the structure is:

• Om ... = If ...
• condition first, result second

This is very common in Swedish:

• Om jag hade vetat det, skulle jag ha hjälpt dig. = If I had known that, I would have helped you.

Kranen means the tap / the faucet.

The noun is:

• en kran = a tap
• kranen = the tap

Swedish often uses the definite form when the thing is understood from the situation or context. Here, it means a specific tap, not just any tap.

This is one of the basic Swedish patterns:

• indefinite article separately: en kran
• definite ending attached to the noun: kranen

Hade fungerat is the past perfect of fungera (to work / function).

It is formed with:

• hade
  • supine

So:

• fungera = to work
• har fungerat = has worked
• hade fungerat = had worked

In this sentence, Swedish uses the past perfect because it is talking about an unreal situation in the past:

• Om kranen hade fungerat bättre ... = If the tap had worked better ...

This is very similar to English if it had worked.

Because this sentence is a past unreal conditional.

Swedish usually uses:

• Om + past perfect in the if-clause
• skulle + ha + supine/past participle structure in the main clause

So:

• Om kranen hade fungerat bättre, skulle ... = If the tap had worked better, would have ...

If you said Om kranen fungerade bättre, that would usually point more toward a present or general hypothetical idea, like If the tap worked better rather than If the tap had worked better.

So the choice of hade fungerat tells you this is about a past situation that did not happen as wished.

Skulle is used to express the conditional idea, often corresponding to English would.

In this sentence:

• skulle glasen redan ha varit fyllda = the glasses would already have been filled

In unreal conditional sentences, Swedish commonly uses skulle in the main clause:

• Om ..., skulle ...

Examples:

• Om jag hade haft tid, skulle jag ha kommit. = If I had had time, I would have come.
• Om kranen hade fungerat bättre, skulle glasen redan ha varit fyllda. = If the tap had worked better, the glasses would already have been filled.

This is the Swedish way of expressing a conditional perfect result/state.

Let’s break it down:

• skulle = would
• ha = have
• varit = been
• fyllda = filled

Together:

• skulle ha varit fyllda = would have been filled

So the structure is very close to English.

It describes the result that would already have existed if the condition had been met.

Because fyllda agrees with glasen, which is plural.

Here, fyllda is functioning like an adjective/past participle describing the state of the glasses:

• ett glas är fyllt = a glass is filled
• glasen är fyllda = the glasses are filled

Agreement pattern:

• common singular: often fylld
• neuter singular: fyllt
• plural: fyllda

Since glasen means the glasses and is plural, Swedish uses fyllda.

Glasen means the glasses.

The noun is:

• ett glas = a glass
• glas = glasses
• glasen = the glasses

This noun is a neuter noun (ett noun), and its plural indefinite form is the same as the singular:

• singular: glas
• plural: glas

Then the definite plural is:

• glasen

This can be confusing to English speakers because the form does not change much.

So in the sentence:

• glasen = the glasses

Redan means already.

Its position here is natural Swedish word order:

• skulle glasen redan ha varit fyllda

It comes after the subject glasen and before the infinitive/perfect part ha varit fyllda.

A rough pattern is:

• finite verb
• subject
• sentence adverb
• infinitive/perfect elements

So:

• skulle = finite verb
• glasen = subject
• redan = adverb
• ha varit fyllda = rest of the verb phrase

This placement is very common in Swedish.

Because Swedish follows the V2 rule in main clauses: the finite verb usually comes in the second position.

When the sentence begins with the Om clause, that whole clause takes the first position:

• Om kranen hade fungerat bättre,

After that, the main clause must put the finite verb first:

• skulle glasen redan ha varit fyllda

So Swedish does not say:

• Om kranen hade fungerat bättre, glasen skulle ... in normal standard word order

It says:

• Om kranen hade fungerat bättre, skulle glasen ...

This is one of the most important Swedish word-order rules.

Not exactly in the usual event-passive sense.

Vara + past participle often describes a state or result:

• glasen var fyllda = the glasses were filled

That focuses on their condition.

A more event-like passive would often use:

• bli or
• the -s passive, depending on context

For example:

• Glasen blev fyllda = the glasses got filled / were filled
• Glasen fylldes = the glasses were filled

But in your sentence, ha varit fyllda emphasizes the resulting state:

• the glasses would already have been in a filled condition

Yes, in some contexts you might hear:

• ... skulle glasen redan ha blivit fyllda

But it gives a slightly different nuance.

• ha varit fyllda focuses more on the resulting state: the glasses would already have been filled
• ha blivit fyllda focuses more on the event/process of becoming filled

In many situations both are possible, but varit fyllda fits especially well when the important point is the end result.

You sometimes can say fulla (full) in everyday language, but it is not exactly the same.

• fyllda = filled
• fulla = full

So:

• glasen var fyllda emphasizes that they had been filled
• glasen var fulla emphasizes that they were full

In many practical situations the meanings overlap, but fyllda matches the idea of being filled by the tap more directly.

Not quite, because English varies by region.

Swedish kran can correspond to:

• tap in British English
• faucet in American English

So if the learner has seen either translation, both are fine depending on dialect.

It is perfectly correct and natural, but a bit more careful and written-style than very casual speech.

In everyday spoken Swedish, people might sometimes choose slightly simpler or more colloquial wording, for example with:

• funkat instead of fungerat

So you might hear:

• Om kranen hade funkat bättre, skulle glasen redan ha varit fyllda.

That means the same thing, but sounds more conversational.

It is a past unreal conditional: a sentence about something that did not happen in the past, and the result that also did not happen.

Structure:

• Om + past perfect
• skulle + ha + past participle/result expression

So:

• Om kranen hade fungerat bättre = If the tap had worked better
• skulle glasen redan ha varit fyllda = the glasses would already have been filled

This is the Swedish equivalent of English:

• If X had happened, Y would have happened.

Only partly. The structure is very similar, but a strict word-for-word translation would sound awkward.

A close breakdown is:

• Om = if
• kranen = the tap
• hade fungerat bättre = had worked better
• skulle = would
• glasen = the glasses
• redan = already
• ha varit fyllda = have been filled

So the natural English version is:

• If the tap had worked better, the glasses would already have been filled.

The good news is that this sentence maps to English quite closely compared with many other Swedish structures.