Breakdown of Skulle motståndarlaget vara oslagbara om de spelade varandras karaktärer?
vara
to be
de
they
spela
to play
om
if, whether
Questions & Answers about Skulle motståndarlaget vara oslagbara om de spelade varandras karaktärer?
Why is oslagbara plural when motståndarlaget is a singular ett-word?
This is an example of semantic agreement. Even though motståndarlaget (the opposing team) is grammatically a singular ett-word, it refers to a group of multiple people. Because we are thinking of the individual players, Swedish often makes the adjective plural (oslagbara) rather than strictly following the grammar to make it singular (oslagbart).
The sentence uses the pronoun de to refer to motståndarlaget. Could I use det instead?
You technically could use det to strictly match the grammar of ett lag, but de is far more natural here. Once we shift to thinking about the team as a collection of people (which we did by using the plural oslagbara), the pronoun usually follows suit. Using det immediately after using a plural adjective would sound noticeably mismatched.
Why is the past tense spelade used if they are talking about a hypothetical present or future situation?
This is how Swedish forms hypothetical conditions, and it works exactly like English! You use skulle + infinitive in the main clause (skulle... vara / would... be) and the past tense in the om clause (spelade / played). Even though it is the past tense form, it describes an unreal or imagined present/future.
Why isn't the definite form used for characters (), since we know specifically whose characters they mean?