Word for word, these future preterite constructions look like something else in English. How do you differentiate in swedish? For example if I wanted to say "she would come after him" as in describing something someone might have done habitually in the past, rather than something someone was going to do in future.
The two correct solutions are conflicting. "She would come after him" means she still intends to come. "She was going to come after him" means that she would have come, but no longer intends to. The correct way to phrase the first sentence is "she would have come after him", that way both sentences have the same meaning.
No, that's not fully correct. Although, yes, those sentences could mean what you said in ONE context, both of them have the same practical meaning in the context of, say, explaining a complex plan involving multiple people. Think of a travel itinerary where people arrive from multiple locations, or a schedule of speakers at an event, or the narration over a montage in a heist movie.
This ska/skulle ambiguity now makes me curious, but it is really hard to ask this question in a right way: Do native swedish speakers actually understand ska/skulle to be a word marking something like "intentionality or aim to do"? I mean differently than ambiguous "will-should/would-were going to do", having its own meaning as a bit of both, but without ambiguity.
So in the case Hon skulle komma efter honom. you actually understand both possible english interpretation as one, marking some intentionality, therefore not having any reason to figure out the exact meaning?
Again, i feel it is really hard to make the point I wanted to make, especially since I am not even a native english speaker, but I also want to understand swedish concepts and "think in swedish" instead of just speaking it.