Verb forms in the clauses of conditional sentences are commonly seen a an important aspect of the overall characterization of conditionals. However, most analysts' interest has centered on subjunctive and “counterfactual” sentences, where they signal the speaker's negative commitment to the proposition. The unmarked, indicative verb phrases in conditionals are consequently assumed to be interpretable along with straightforward, non-conditional indicative declaratives. Consequently, sentence (1) below is usually claimed to belong to a different class of conditionals than (2) and (3). The analysis advocated below assumes that all verb forms in conditionals contribute in a significant way to the overall interpretation of the construction, and, in particular, reveal the specific nature of the non-factuality of the assumption in the scope of if and of the relation between p and q.With respect to these criteria the sentences exemplified in (1)–(3) will be claimed to form a uniform class, which I will refer to as predictive conditionals:

1. If it rains, the match will be canceled.

2. If it rained, the match would be canceled.

3. If it had rained, the match would have been canceled.

Predictive conditionals such as (1)–(3) will be discussed in the sections to follow with respect to their temporal interpretation and type of modality, as well as the kind of unassertiveness signaled and the relation between the assumptions in p and q.