Indicative and subjunctive conditionals are in non-complimentary distribution: there are conversational contexts at which both are licensed (Stalnaker 1975; Karttunen and Peters 1979; von Fintel 1998). This means we can ask an important, but under-explored, question: in contexts which license both, what relations hold between the two? In this paper, I’ll argue for an initially surprising conclusion: when attention is restricted to the relevant contexts, indicatives and subjunctives are co-entailing. §1 introduces the indicative/subjunctive distinction, along with a discussion of the relevant notion of entailment; §2 presents the main argument of the paper, and §3 considers some of the philosophical implications of the argument in §2. Finally, §4 argues that we can reconcile the equivalence of indicatives and subjunctives with apparently conflicting judgements.

中文翻译：

---

有条件的崩溃

指示性条件句和虚拟语气条件句以非互补的方式分布：存在两者均获得许可的会话上下文（Stalnaker 1975；Karttunen 和 Peters 1979；von Fintel 1998）。这意味着我们可以问一个重要但尚未充分探讨的问题：在同时许可两者的情况下，两者之间存在什么关系？在本文中，我将提出一个最初令人惊讶的结论：当注意力仅限于相关上下文时，指示语和虚拟语气是共同蕴涵的。§1 介绍了指示性/虚拟性的区别，并讨论了相关的蕴含概念；第 2 节介绍了本文的主要论点，第 3 节考虑了第 2 节中的论点的一些哲学含义。最后，