https://www.facebook.com/groups/839957606051774/permalink/3025496450831201/

In China people often say "History cannot be hypothesized" (历史不能假设) when discussing a history topic, referring to the fact that you cannot say if something had had (not) happened, so-and-so would (not) have happened. Two questions: (A) Is this saying common in other East Asian countries? (B) Do other East Asian languages have subjunctive mood?

The reason I ask is that I think people in the West rarely say this (History cannot be hypothesized) and have less problem with discussions in a counter-factual situation (counter-factual means exactly that: if A had had done/did/were to do something, B would have done/would do something.) If my impression is correct, I attribute this difference between the West and China, at least partially, to the lack of subjunctive mood in the Chinese language.

Revision of my questions:

(A) The expression equivalent to "History cannot be hypothesized" (e.g. "there are no ifs in history", "one can't make history with 'ifs' and 'buts' ") is in almost every culture or language. But the extent of its existence or impact on speech community's mind may differ greatly. I can't think of a good way to measure it. But imagine you walk into a local bookstore. Can you easily find a book titled with words "What if" (e.g. "What If?: The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been")? In the US, it's generally Yes. But in China I don't recall seeing such a book, except for one translated (《未曾发生的历史》"Virtual History" by Niall Ferguson). (B) As an alternative to asking if a language has subjunctive mood, I want to know if an Eastern Asian language can produce a context-free sentence that can clearly mean "if I had 1000 dollars today" or "if I have 1000 dollars today" but not ambiguously both at the same time. (The amount of money I chose here is borderline for an ordinary person to be able to produce in a short time. Adjust to the actual economic situation as needed.) In short, my hypothesis is that if a language cannot produce a context-free sentence equivalent to one expressed in English subjunctive mood that describes impossible events, the people speaking this language natively will have a strong mentality that counterfactual history is worthless. Conversely, speakers of a language with this subjunctive mood will have much less misgiving to embrace such historical argument and be willing to read and think with such logical reasoning. Minor notes. (1) As I write, I realize subjunctive mood in some languages is required by grammar (e.g. in Spanish, after "querer"). Exclude that. I'm only talking about subjunctive mood that expresses hypothetical events. (2) Let's focus on the mentality of the general public, because scholars in different countries probably have about the same division between supporters and opponents regarding counterfactual historiography.