Translation:If the moose swam it would become clean.
I thought I'd try "If the elk took a bath it would become a reindeer" because it sounded funny, wondering if it was going to be accepted, and (surprisingly?) it was.
Is it really correct though? Doesn't it need the article "en" before "ren" to actually mean what I wrote?
Bathed was not accepted on 3rd of April 2018, so no, you do not accept it apparently :D
It was definitely accepted then, and though I cannot check now, I doubt somebody removed it. Either you had some other error and did not realise, or there was a bug.
Dear Hinz,,it is not a good english translation,,at least it should be,,,,hade badat,,,instead of,,, badade,,,
I am sorry i could not explain it so bright...suppose it is me and not the älg,so how could i say ,,,,,,IF I SWAM I WOULD BECOME CLEAN,,,,,maybe the native speakers should give any suggestions but i think it should be,,,,if älgen had badat den skulle bli ren,,,,
For "If I swam, I would become clean" you'd just use Om jag simmade skulle jag bli ren.
Your suggestion is in the wrong tense and in the wrong subclause order. Om älgen hade badat skulle den bli ren works, but not as a translation of a different tense.
Is the speed of the sentence as it would be in real time speaking? I feel like it'd be easier if there were a little pause between "badade" and "skulle".
The speed is fine but the stress is not. It should be put on BAdade, with a very brief pause between that and the next word.
Yes, we're aware that it reads a tad awkardly in English, but there's also a clear distinction in meaning between "be" and "become" that we need to maintain, even though the end result is obviously the same. I don't think there's a great solution here, really. We do need to teach the construction, but we miss the pedagogical point if we accept "be".