Secondo Assimil (Wikipedia fornisce una spiegazione più chiara però) la liaison va usata nei seguenti casi:

• tra articolo e nome
• tra aggettivo e nome
• tra pronome e verbo

In ogni altro caso sarebbe facoltativa. In più: la liaison si fa più facilmente laddove esiste uno stretto legame sintattico tra le parole; non ha invece luogo se le parole sono separate da una pausa.

A hypothetical statement is one that is speculative. It speculates on the consequences of a hypothetical event. It states what would occur if something that hasn't happened, were to happen.

Expressing hypotheticals in Italian (il periodo ipotetico) is somewhat tricky because it requires use of the subjunctive, a verb tense that takes getting used to. It is further complicated by making the chapter on this topic that you will find in textbooks overly long and confusing.

Here I will start with two solid reference points in English, so that you can see exactly what is going on. Then we'll go through some examples to see what it looks like in real world use.

Could

The first case is the could scenario.

- You've never scored a penalty.
- Yeah, but I could do it.

- You don't play the piano, do you?
- I could if I wanted to!

Got it? Okay, so we build our hypothetical from the could.  And the hypothetical describes what would happen if you did the thing that you "could do". (Or, in general, what would happen if the thing that "could happen", happened.)

- If I scored a penalty, I would celebrate.

- If I played the piano, I would play Beethoven all the time.

Here is what you need to know:

1. The action is described using the imperfect subjunctive (il congiuntivo imperfetto).
2. The consequence of the action is described using the conditional (il condizionale).

- Se segnassi un rigore, lo festeggerei.

- Se suonassi il pianoforte, suonerei sempre Beethoven.

Of course, you are not limited to talking about yourself.

- If it rained, they would not show up.
- Se piovesse, non si farebbero vivi.

Could have

The second scenario is all about could have.

- You lost the game!
- Yeah, but we could have won.

- Al Capone never jumped out of a window.
- Yeah, but he could have, he was that crazy.

Once again, the hypothetical starts from the thing that "could have happened".

- If we had won the game, we would have been champions.

- If he had jumped out of a window, he would have terrified his underlings even more.

In this case the tenses are different:

1. The action is described using the pluperfect subjunctive (il congiuntivo trapassato).
2. The consequence of the action is described using the past conditional (il condizionale passato).

- Se avessimo vinto la partita, saremmo stati campioni.

- Se si fosse buttato dalla finestra, avrebbe fatto ancora più paura ai suoi subalterni.

A slight variation on this is used if the consequence is one that is still felt today, in which case you use the regular conditional:

- If he had jumped out of a window, he would be even more famous.
- Se si fosse buttato dalla finestra, sarebbe ancora più famoso.

Examples

If you're not reading Leonardo then you really should, the guy is hilarious. In a recent entry he made a superb demonstration of the hypothetical.

I'll just quote one sentence here, but read the whole thing so you understand what is being talked about. The short version is that Berlusconi is alleged to have employed underage prostitutes, one of whom was nicknamed Ruby. Hiring a prostitute in Italy does not constitute a crime, but if the person is underage then it obviously does. Leonardo here is satirizing the kind of statements made in support of Berlusconi by various figures who more or less owe their position to him. A classic case of scandal and farce in Italian politics.

Il sesso coi cyborg non è ancora regolamentato per legge, e quindi Berlusconi (che è impotente) (e se non fosse impotente sarebbe fidanzato) (e se avesse tradito la fidanzata con Ruby, comunque non l'avrebbe pagata) (e se l'avesse pagata, comunque sarebbe maggiorenne) non può essere punito per aver fatto sesso con un cyborg.

- e se non fosse impotente sarebbe fidanzato
- and if he weren't impotent, he would have a girlfriend

- e se avesse tradito la fidanzata con Ruby, comunque non l'avrebbe pagata
- and if he had cheated on his girlfriend with Ruby, he still wouldn't have paid her for it

- e se l'avesse pagata, comunque sarebbe maggiorenne
- and if he had paid her, she would be of age anyway

There are many interesting processes that work on languages which contribute to their change over time. Prepositions (or postpositions, in other languages) quite commonly become glued to the beginnings or ends of words (or even the beginnings or ends of roots in words). They go from being prepositions to being pre- and postfixes, and in many cases quite regular, thus prepare and prescribe (or indeed, prefix) have the same suffix pre in the sense of before/prior to. In some cases, they continue to exist both as prepositions and prefixes, in others they survive only as prefixes.

I will focus mostly on prepositions here, because they are quite instructive in mapping words from Norwegian to Dutch. They basically correspond to syllables, even if not all syllables here listed are prepositions.

It has to be said also that just because the same word exists in two languages (as described by these translations), it might not mean the same thing. I've tried as much as possible to use words that correspond both in composition and meaning.

Now, I'm quite sure that encyclopedias have been compiled of this information, but I find it more fun to notice things myself than reading the encyclopedia. The cases you will see here are by no means an exhaustive list, merely the ones I have noticed (and can recall). You will discover your own patterns (and that, in my view, is quite satisfying).

Syllable translations

av -> af/van

avfall -> afval {garbage}
avhenge av -> afhangen van {to depend on}

av -> uit

avsette -> uitzetten {to expel}
kle av -> uitkleden {to undress}

bi -> bij

bidrag -> bijdrage {contribution}
bistå -> bijstaan {to assist}

for -> ver

forgå -> vergaan {to perish}
forlate -> verlaten {to abandon}

for -> voor

forbi -> voorbij {elapsed}
forberede -> voorbereiden {to prepare}
forekomme -> voorkomen {to occur}

het -> heid

mulighet -> mogelijkheid {possibility}
nødvendighet -> noodzakelijkheid {necessity}

-ig -> -ijk

mulig -> mogelijk {possible}
nødvendig -> noodzakelijk {necessary}

opp -> op

oppstå -> opstaan {to rise}

på -> op

påfallende -> opvallend {remarkable}
vente på -> wachten op {to wait for}

til -> toe

tillate -> toelaten {to allow}
tilstand -> toestand {condition}

u -> on

umulig -> onmogelijk {impossible}
utrolig -> ongelooflijk {incredible}

ut -> uit

utebli -> uitblijven {to fail to appear}
uttrykk -> uitdrukking {expression}

Consonant changes

I think most of these are pretty obvious, because the sound you hear is very similar, so it's more a spelling change than a sound change.

f -> v

falle -> vallen {to fall}
fare -> gevaar {danger}

k -> ch

makt -> macht {power}
vitenskap -> wetenschap {science}

kj -> k

kjenne -> kennen {to know}
kjøkken -> keuken {kitchen}

s -> z

svømme -> zwemmen {to swim}
synge -> zingen {to sing}
sønn -> zoon {son}

hv/v -> w

hvilken -> welk {which}
hva -> wat {what}
gevinst -> gewin {winning}
vinner -> winnaar {winner}

Vowel changes

The vowels are more substantial. Going from lyd to geluid is y to au in Norwegian phonology, which is pretty big. Dutch is packed to the brim with diphthongs (a single vowel that actually goes from one sound to another, like "au" or "ei", typically spelled with two letters), so there is a huge amount of these that you have to learn to match with their spellings.

e -> ei

egenskap -> eigenschap  {property/attribute}
kreativitet -> creativiteit {creativity}

i -> ij

bli -> blijven {to remain}
fri -> vrij {free}
tid -> tijd {time}

o -> oe

million -> miljoen {million}

u -> ui

bruk -> gebruik {use}

y -> u

fylle -> vullen {to fill}
fyre av -> afvuren {to fire off}

y -> ui

lyd -> geluid {sound}
tydelig -> duidelijk {clear}

æ -> ee

ærbødig  -> eerbiedig {reverential}
ære -> eer {honor}
ærlig -> eerlijk {honest}

ø -> eu

seriøs -> serieus {serious}

ø -> oe

prøve -> proef {test}
søke -> zoeken {to search}
øve -> oefenen {to rehearse}

å -> aa

gå -> gaan {to go}
måltid -> maaltijd {meal}
slå -> slaan {to hit}

Decoding

So how does it work in practice? If you're learning Dutch it won't take very long before you see the common word onwaarschijnlijk. At first sight it's a pretty scary word with crazy vowel combinations. But if you take the above list and work in the opposite direction you discover than you can split off on which is a negation. You now have something that begins with waar and since that is also a common word you probably already know that it means sann {true}. You also know that lijk is a common suffix that corresponds to lig (which is used in adjectives), so with the parts you have you can make usann-lig, which in all probability completes to usannsynlig {improbable, more literally: not-true-looks-like}. You check the context and confirm that it has to be an adjective, and that this meaning fits well.

As a matter of fact, this is exactly how I understood the word the first time I saw it. This is actually quite a good example, because it shows how you can do this with partial knowledge. There are two parts with perfect correspondence, on/u and lig/lijk. But waar is a different root from sann, and this I had to know about. I did not use schijn at all, because it didn't look like anything I knew. But I now know that it would have been a blind alley, because synlig {visible} does not correspond to schijnlijk (which is not even a word). schijnen means to seem, which I didn't know at the time.

A similar example is ongelooflijk = utrolig, where you need to know that geloof = tro {belief}, thus "unbelievable".

Now, you might think that trying to painstakingly work this out on paper sounds about as appealing as cleaning a warehouse with a toothbrush. But, of course, the point is that your brain does this to a great extent unconsciously. Sometimes you think you understand a word and you can't even figure out why, it must somehow have found an association that you're not conscious of.

chiarezza

impegnativo

vicino

Chris Rock did a really solid bit a few years ago:

"Colin Powell can never be president. You know why? Whenever Colin Powell is on the news, white people give him the same compliments: 'How do you feel about Colin Powell?', 'He speaks so well! He's so well spoken. I mean he really speaks so well!' Like that's a compliment. 'He speaks so well' is not a compliment, okay? 'He speaks so well' is some shit you say about retarded people that can talk."

Here's the bad news. You are probably Colin Powell.

Here's what you might have been thinking. In fact, almost certainly what you were thinking. You were thinking that here I'm going to study this language, learn to pronounce it right, learn to write grammatically, learn to use the correct expressions and after all that is done I'm going to be competent in the language. I'm going to go up to a group of these people and join in, like I'm one of them.

Unless you're some kind of extreme scholar whose only interest is ancient scrolls or something, you are learning the language to have the social benefits. To interact with those people, to have access to those new social groups. You might be thinking sure they will be able to tell that I'm not one of them; my pronunciation won't be exactly right; my use of the language won't be perfect. But it'll be close enough, and with enough practice I can get really smooth.

But that's where you might be in for a nasty surprise.

And no one told you about this. No one told you that it's not conquering the grammar that's really tough, it's not teaching your mouth to make those new sounds, it's something different.

It's that you're Colin Powell.

You will stand out in a crowd and people can tell. They will give you compliments on how good your language is. They do this because they know you need the encouragement. No one gets told that their language ability is good when it's actually good, that would be absurd. When it's obvious, there's no reason to say that.

It's common for people who have some kind of disability to say that they just want to be treated like everyone else. And therein lies the crux of the matter.

You're not "like everyone else" and everyone else knows that. So you get treated differently, good different or bad different, but always different.

Either people are trying to be helpful and treat you as if you understand less than you do. And over explain things to you. In which case you want to tell them "look, I understand more than that, give me some credit."

Or you get bad different. You approach someone with a carefully constructed message that you know for a fact is completely correct, yet you don't get the response that you expect. You get a short, dismissive response. You get treated almost as if you had said something slightly insulting.

It's that... what you said was understood and you basically made your point clearly, and yet... you don't sound authentic. There is something odd about you, reading between the lines, that makes people second guess themselves. As if you're speaking lines from memory that don't entirely fit the context. As if they're not sure if you know what you're saying. As if they don't quite know how to respond to you, how to interact with you. In short, you are an aberration, an exception to the rule.

And when people are unsure how to respond, they tend to seem a little cold and a little dismissive.

Is there any good news? Colin Powell really never did become president, but you're better off.

You can get beyond this. It's hard to say how long it will take, but if you stick with it there will come a time when your grasp on the language is smooth enough that you do sound like the real thing. Sure, you might still have an accent. And you might still be making mistakes. But your performance will be smooth enough to convince. Convince that you know what you're saying, and that he who is responding to you will be understood, that you can communicate as equals. What is the quickest way from here to there?

I wish I knew that.