Learn Swedish: Vi skulle släcka elden, men smeden gjorde järnet varmt igen. - We were going to extinguish the fire, but the blacksmith made the iron hot again.

In this sentence, varmt acts as an object predicative, which is an adjective that describes the object of the sentence after a verb like gjorde (made). Because the object it describes is järnet (an ett-word), the adjective must take the neuter -t ending to agree with it.

Since järnet is definite, shouldn't the adjective take the definite -a ending (varma)?

This is a very common trap! When an adjective is used as a predicative (coming after a verb to describe the subject or object), it never takes the definite -a ending. It only changes based on gender (-t for ett-words) or number (-a for plurals). Even though järnet is definite, varmt stays in the indefinite form.

Why does the sentence use skulle when the English translation is 'were going to' instead of 'should'?

While skulle is often used for giving advice (should), it is also the past tense of ska (will or are going to). Here, it expresses a past intention or a plan that did not happen exactly as expected: we were going to extinguish the fire.

Could I use slockna instead of släcka to mean 'extinguish'?