Jag kan redigera videon imorgon, om du vill kommentera den först.

Because kan and vill are followed by the bare infinitive in Swedish.

So you say:

• kan redigera
• vill kommentera

not:

• kan att redigera
• vill att kommentera

This is the same pattern used with other modal verbs, such as:

• ska göra
• måste gå
• får läsa

So in this sentence, both verb combinations are completely normal:

• Jag kan redigera
• du vill kommentera

Here kan most naturally means something like can / am able to / it works for me to.

In Swedish, kan can express:

• ability
• possibility
• practical availability

So in this sentence, it may mean:

• I am able to edit the video tomorrow
• I can edit the video tomorrow
• It would work for me to edit the video tomorrow

The exact nuance depends on context, just as in English.

Because videon is the definite singular form: the video.

Swedish usually adds a definite ending to the noun itself rather than using a separate word like the.

So:

• en video = a video
• videon = the video

Since video is a common-gender noun and ends in a vowel, the definite ending is -n:

• video → videon

Because den means it, and it refers back to videon.

So the structure is like English:

• I can edit the video tomorrow, if you want to comment on it first.

Swedish avoids repeating videon again when a pronoun will do, just like English does.

In the sentence:

• kommentera den först

den is the object of kommentera and refers to videon.

Because video is an en-word (common gender), not an ett-word.

Swedish object pronouns agree with the grammatical gender of the noun:

• en word → den
• ett word → det

Since we say:

• en video
• videon

the correct pronoun is:

• den

Yes. Both imorgon and i morgon are used.

They both mean tomorrow.

In modern Swedish, imorgon is very common, but i morgon is also accepted. You may see both in writing, depending on style, region, or personal preference.

So these are both possible:

• Jag kan redigera videon imorgon
• Jag kan redigera videon i morgon

Yes, it can move.

Swedish main clauses normally follow the V2 rule, which means the finite verb comes in the second position.

In your sentence:

• Jag = first element
• kan = finite verb in second position

That is why Jag kan ... is correct.

The time word imorgon can stay later in the sentence:

• Jag kan redigera videon imorgon

But it can also be moved to the front for emphasis:

• Imorgon kan jag redigera videon

That is also correct, and then kan still stays in second position.

What you normally cannot do is place imorgon before kan while keeping Jag first:

• Jag imorgon kan redigera videon — not normal Swedish

Because om du vill kommentera den först is a subordinate clause, not a question.

In Swedish, subordinate clauses usually keep the order:

• subject + verb

So:

• om du vill ...

is correct.

Compare:

• Vill du kommentera den först? = question
• om du vill kommentera den först = subordinate clause

This is a very common contrast in Swedish:

• main clause questions often have verb + subject
• subordinate clauses usually have subject + verb

Here om means if.

So:

• om du vill kommentera den först means
• if you want to comment on it first

Be careful, because om can also mean other things in other contexts, such as about or whether. But in this sentence, the meaning is clearly if.

Först means first.

Here it shows that the commenting should happen before the editing.

So the idea is:

• If you want to comment on it first, I can edit the video tomorrow.

Putting först at the end is very natural in Swedish:

• kommentera den först

That is the normal place for it in this sentence. It modifies the action of commenting, not the noun.

Not always.

In modern Swedish, commas are often used less than in English. A subordinate clause introduced by om can appear with or without a comma, depending on style and rhythm.

So both of these can be acceptable:

• Jag kan redigera videon imorgon, om du vill kommentera den först.
• Jag kan redigera videon imorgon om du vill kommentera den först.

The version with the comma gives a slightly clearer pause. The version without it is also very normal.

Yes, if it is already clear which thing you mean.

Then the sentence would start with:

• Jag kan redigera den imorgon ...

That means I can edit it tomorrow ...

Using videon is more explicit. Using den is more natural once the video has already been mentioned in the conversation.

So the choice depends on context:

• videon = clearer, more specific
• den = more natural when the reference is already obvious