Conditional patterns: Why does this book say と isn't OK in these situations?

Question

I believe several users here are familiar with the book 中上級を教える人のための日本語文法ハンドブック. My question is related to Chapter 30 in this book, which is about conditional patterns (たら, と, ば, なら, ...).

In this chapter, the first type of conditional sentences is deemed 仮定条件, basically "hypothetical situations". In this category, the use of と is disallowed. Within the remaining three categories (非事実的条件, 確定条件, 事実的条件), と is only permitted in the last category, and only for past-tense sentences. So I want to know, where would future-tense と sentences fit into this system, and why isn't it allowed in 仮定条件?

徹夜すると・徹夜したら、体調が悪くなります。 If you stay up all night, you'll damage your health.

For example, both たら and と are OK here. And the sentence seems like an open-and-shut case of 仮定条件 to me.

I know と has a strong nuance of cause-and-effect, for example:

お金を入れてボタンを押すと、切符が出ます。 When you put in money and press the button, a ticket will come out.

Is there any reason this couldn't be classified as 仮定条件, meaning 押したら or 押せば would also be grammatically OK (albeit changing the nuance slightly)?

To summarize, I want to rectify how the conditional と in non-past-tense sentences fits into this book's classification system in Chapter 30. I realize it's a very specific question, so thanks very much in advance.

Answer 1

The book doesn’t say using 〜と in non-past sentences isn’t OK. It just considers it out of its scope because that usage was already explained in the first book (初級を教える人のための日本語文法ハンドブック). Note that the book says ここで扱うのは次のような形式です at the beginning of Chapter 30.

The term 事実的条件 is used in Chapter 24 of the first book, too. As you understood, it appears to refer to only sentences that talk about something that actually happened, obviously in past tense. The most basic usage of 〜と in non-past tense, which is the main topic of the section in which 事実的条件 is mentioned under もう少し, isn’t given any name like 〜条件. It is just explained as 反復的・恒常的に成り立つ依存関係. I think that’s what it is.