Talk:Counterfactual conditional

Antecedent/consequent versus protasis/apodosis
I'd like to switch over the terminology used in the article, from protasis to antecedent and from apodosis to consequent. The reason being that these terms are pretty much universally used in the contemporary linguistics and philosophy literature. But I wanted to post here, just in case anybody objects and wants to discuss. Botterweg14 (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

"Was" and "were"
This comment is in regards to the recent IP edits replacing “was” with “were”.


 * I agree with the editor that the “were” form should be mentioned, so I added some text and examples. The text I added mentions both the terms "irrealis" and "subjunctive" while noting some of the reasons why the latter term is often dispreferred.


 * Where I disagree with the editor is in the use of key examples with simple past morphology. As the article discusses at length, the current consensus among linguists is that tense, not mood is in the driver's seat when it comes to counterfactuality–– and certainly not case!  Thus, the clearest illustration of the morphological contrast between indicatives and counterfactuals would be present versus simple past. Botterweg14 (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The first citation gives an example of "If this were a ruby, it would be red."


 * That's the proper English. The reason people are trying to replace it is that it's wrong.


 * This constitutes original research if the links don't back up the text. WikiFrog5280 (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! The Iatridou (2000) paper actually has quite a few examples of simple past counterfactuals, e.g. in her (28) and (47). But if you think more citations are necessary I can stick some more in. I think the citations currently in the lede were for the claim about crosslinguistic variation, not the example, though I admit that could be a lot clearer. FWIW, though, I don't think there's any real controversy over the existence of a modal use of the simple past. Its precise semantics, sure. Its appropriateness in formal or literary prose, definitely. But not its existence. Botterweg14 (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you insist that this form is the simple past (indicative)? It might as well be a past subjunctive that can no longer be distinguished from the indicate? That should be supported by the diachronic evolution of All Germanic languages. 2A0A:A540:E295:0:F40B:4F0D:BBCC:EFC4 (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm the original anonymous editor, and my edit was pursuant to a discussion on a specific discussion on the use of the subjunctive as an indicator of counterfactuality. I don't dispute that current usage makes tense more popular than mood for indication among the general, global English population given its status as a lingua franca. Even in the US, it certainly is the non-academic norm. But I would assert that among certain subpopulations, like highly literate academic disciplines like philosophy, English, and literature, that rule may not hold. As it's an empirical question, if you had ready access to a paper that refutes it, you're more than welcome to post it to correct me. I could see how the generalization to irrealis might be technically feasible, but it certainly is a normative decision to call it such when the subjunctive mood is a well-established phrase that is a sub-type. I'll take a look at the rationale the source provides to understand the prescriptivist impulse. I am adding an elliptical construction that is a common synonymy. I think it bears mentioning that the focus of this particular grammatical construction should describe Modern English, not modern English. Parallel syntactic constructions with equivalent semantics often can perpetuate themselves for hundreds of years despite language purist objections. jtvisona (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * After adding and rereading the section, I'm just adding an observation that the use of the past tense doesn't support an elliptical construction. Like using 'may' instead of 'can' differentiates the syntax to clarify a differentiation in semantics, so too does the use of mood over tense and is likely a partial factor in the continuation of the use of the subjunctive (or irrealis if you prefer) mood. My belief is that using labels other than 'subjunctive' to describe this construction is excessively prescriptivist and is based on a hypertechnical assertion that violates a good heuristic: common currency trumps jargon. Thanks for your work on this! jtvisona (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Strict Conditional and the falsity of 'P'
Why does P not obtain in world w should P but not Q obtain in some world v? It seems clear that both P and Q can obtain in w, where P but not Q obtains in some world v without contradiction.

I think the contributor meant to say, 'To see why, observe that if P is false at w then □(P→Q) will be false at w if there is some accessible world v where P is true and Q is not' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lampooner101 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

fake tense
They simply are not a tense. what is happening is the use of attracted sequence. (aka. backshifting) Stjohn1970 (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)