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


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](https://www.amazon.co.jp/%E4%B8%AD%E4%B8%8A%E7%B4%9A%E3%82%92%E6%95%99%E3%81%88%E3%82%8B%E4%BA%BA%E3%81%AE%E3%81%9F%E3%82%81%E3%81%AE%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E8%AA%9E%E6%96%87%E6%B3%95%E3%83%8F%E3%83%B3%E3%83%89%E3%83%96%E3%83%83%E3%82%AF-%E5%BA%B5-%E5%8A%9F%E9%9B%84/dp/4883192016).
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.




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.




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.

