Καλησπέρα σε όλους,
Το βρίσκω (στο google) να έχει αποδοθεί "εικονική ιστορία", "αντίστροφη ιστορία", "εναλλακτική ιστορία", "αντιπραγματική ιστορία". Από όλα αυτά, το χειρότερό μου είναι η "αντίστροφη", δεν θα το χρησιμοποιούσα με τίποτα.
Αν δούμε τη σημασία του όρου "counterfactual", όπως εξηγείται στη wiki, πώς σας φαίνεται η απόδοση "ιστορία του μη πραγματικού";
The difference between indicative and counterfactual conditionals, in a context of past time reference, is one of emphasis. This can be illustrated with a pair of examples in which the if clause is in the past indicative in the first example but in the pluperfect subjunctive in the second:
If Oswald did not shoot Kennedy, then someone else did.
If Oswald had not shot Kennedy, then someone else would have.
The protasis (the if clause) of the first sentence may or may not be true according to the speaker, so the apodosis (the then clause) also may or may not be true; the apodosis is asserted by the speaker to be true if the protasis is true. In this sentence the if clause and the then clause are both in the past tense of the indicative mood.
In the second sentence, the speaker is speaking with a certainty that Oswald did shoot Kennedy. According to the speaker, the if clause is false, so the then clause deals with the counterfactual result, i.e., what would have happened. In this sentence the if clause is in the pluperfect subjunctive form of the subjunctive mood, and the then clause is in the conditional perfect form of the conditional mood.
Το βρίσκω (στο google) να έχει αποδοθεί "εικονική ιστορία", "αντίστροφη ιστορία", "εναλλακτική ιστορία", "αντιπραγματική ιστορία". Από όλα αυτά, το χειρότερό μου είναι η "αντίστροφη", δεν θα το χρησιμοποιούσα με τίποτα.
Αν δούμε τη σημασία του όρου "counterfactual", όπως εξηγείται στη wiki, πώς σας φαίνεται η απόδοση "ιστορία του μη πραγματικού";
The difference between indicative and counterfactual conditionals, in a context of past time reference, is one of emphasis. This can be illustrated with a pair of examples in which the if clause is in the past indicative in the first example but in the pluperfect subjunctive in the second:
If Oswald did not shoot Kennedy, then someone else did.
If Oswald had not shot Kennedy, then someone else would have.
The protasis (the if clause) of the first sentence may or may not be true according to the speaker, so the apodosis (the then clause) also may or may not be true; the apodosis is asserted by the speaker to be true if the protasis is true. In this sentence the if clause and the then clause are both in the past tense of the indicative mood.
In the second sentence, the speaker is speaking with a certainty that Oswald did shoot Kennedy. According to the speaker, the if clause is false, so the then clause deals with the counterfactual result, i.e., what would have happened. In this sentence the if clause is in the pluperfect subjunctive form of the subjunctive mood, and the then clause is in the conditional perfect form of the conditional mood.
