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

When we’re talking about learning a language we seem to present an idealized picture of both what the language is like and what our learning is like. We imagine a script, which is written on paper, and which is recited with clear enunciation and proper pacing by a voice actor on our language tapes. This creates the impression that these two things are somehow equivalent, that the written text and the spoken message are two encodings that have the same content. This is the ideal case.

But as we all know, language is not ideal. There is a reason we have expressions like “what did you say” that we use with people who speak our own language perfectly well. Our communication is lossy, ie. the sum total of what is received is less than what was transmitted. To make up the difference we have to reconstruct the message, and our reconstruction may not be accurate. Comprehension is the ability to reconstruct successfully, most of the time.

In order to belabor this point a bit, let’s use an example message from an article:

Liu, he said to sustained clapping, “has exercised his civil rights. He has done nothing wrong. He must be released.”

This is the ideal message, the message that was intended for you. If you speak English then this is perfectly clear to you. But when it becomes degraded in communication, what degree of error can you cope with?

What if the writer had excluded the commas?

Liu he said to sustained clapping “has exercised his civil rights. He has done nothing wrong. He must be released.”

What if there were no quote marks?

Liu he said to sustained clapping has exercised his civil rights. He has done nothing wrong. He must be released.

No periods?

Liu he said to sustained clapping has exercised his civil rights He has done nothing wrong He must be released

No capitalization?

liu he said to sustained clapping has exercised his civil rights he has done nothing wrong he must be released

No spaces?

liuhesaidtosustainedclappinghasexercisedhiscivilrightshehasdo- nenothingwronghemustbereleased

Now, think about it. When you hear speech in a language that you don’t understand, does it have punctuation in it, does it even have spaces? I would suggest that speech is actually much more similar to the last version than to the first one. Sure, there is vocal “punctuation” in the audio, with things like tone of voice and pacing, but it’s not as standardized and clear as punctuation in writing. Names are not capitalized. There are no parentheses. There are no quote marks (only the bandwidth heavy “and I quote”/”end of quote”, which gets quite tiring to hear if there are many quotes).

And the above example only demonstrates information loss, it doesn’t even begin to address errors introduced by a faulty communication (mispronounced words, words spoken with the emphasis in the wrong place, spoken with a foreign accent etc.), yet that too your brain must be prepared to deal with.

Spoken language is never like the original message. Some time ago, a friend recommended a book to me. A book that is available on the author’s website, but which for some reason doesn’t have any punctuation (I don’t know if this is just the online version or the print version too, but that would surprise me). The only thing capitalized are names. I first tried to read this a few months ago, but I found it too tough. I came back to it recently and this time I made more progress. That’s when it dawned on me how well this illustrates how we idealize and underestimate language.

In reading this book the brain is forced to attempt something similar to what I try to do here with a little syntax highlighting:

noi abbiamo le pive nel sacco Malva è sconvolta ma Cocco non molla entriamo e la facciamo lo stesso in quanti siamo dice dobbiamo farla lo stesso tanto ormai non abbiamo più niente da perdere grida e cosi convinciamo gli altri a fare lo stesso l’assemblea entriamo tutti insieme e ci mettiamo in un’aula vuota del pianterreno è un minuto che siamo dentro e non abbiamo ancora cominciato a dire una parola che arriva Mastino sbraitando cosa fate qui tu tu e tu siete tutti quanti sospesi passate in presidenza uno alla volta e esce lasciando la porta aperta Scilla dà un calcio alla porta e poi la barrica ci spingiamo davanti due banchi restiamo un momento in silenzio dobbiamo fare qualcosa ci guardiamo negli occhi ma non sappiamo cosa fare ci sentiamo in trappola

Noi abbiamo le pive nel sacco. Malva è sconvolta, ma Cocco non molla. “Entriamo e la facciamo lo stesso in quanti siamo”, dice. “Dobbiamo farla lo stesso, tanto ormai non abbiamo più niente da perdere”, grida. E così convinciamo gli altri a fare lo stesso. L‘assemblea entriamo tutti insieme e ci mettiamo in un’aula vuota del pianterreno. È un minuto che siamo dentro e non abbiamo ancora cominciato a dire una parola che arriva Mastino sbraitando “cosa fate qui tu, tu e tu? Siete tutti quanti sospesi. Passate in presidenza uno alla volta”. E esce lasciando la porta aperta. Scilla dà un calcio alla porta e poi la barrica. Ci spingiamo davanti due banchi. Restiamo un momento in silenzio. Dobbiamo fare qualcosa. Ci guardiamo negli occhi, ma non sappiamo cosa fare. Ci sentiamo in trappola.

Is that the canonical version? No, it’s not. It’s my best attempt at reconstruction. I’m not certain that this is correct, I’m not even certain that the version on the website matches the printed version (there seem to be quite a few typos). But ultimately, there is no final answer, all language comprehension is heuristical and hypothesis based.