Learn Swedish: Om jag hade vågat, skulle jag ha tagit chansen. - If I had dared, I would have taken the chance.

We use the past perfect in the om (if) clause: hade + the supine verb vågat (had dared). For the result, we use skulle ha + the supine verb tagit (would have taken). This combination shows an unreal past conditional — a situation that didn't actually happen.

Why is the word order skulle jag instead of jag skulle in the second half?

This is the famous V2 (verb-second) rule! The entire 'if' clause (Om jag hade vågat) counts as the first block of information in the sentence. Therefore, the main verb (skulle) must come exactly in the second position, forcing the subject (jag) to swap places and come directly after it.

Why do we use tagit and vågat instead of their simple past tense forms?

Both tagit and vågat are in the supine form. In Swedish, you must always use the supine form after the helping verbs har and hade (as in hade vågat) and after ha (as in skulle ha tagit). You cannot use the simple past tense here.

Will I always hear native speakers say skulle jag ha tagit in full?