(Edited) What is the noun for ''the way of thinking about what could have happened in the past all the time''...
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
in short the noun defines 'thinking and talking about what ifs a lot'
Edit: Unfortunately none of the answers came with the word i'm looking for and I'm sorry I was not fully prepared when I first asked the question.
Context:
Counterfactual history uses hypothetical thought-experiments to imagine the probable results of changes in the historical record. The hypotheses are two-part conditional statements, consisting of an ‘if’ and a ‘then’ clause: if the Luftwaffe had won the air battle, then the Germans might have successfully invaded Britain. Military historians have used counterfactual analysis for centuries. Among professional historians, they are still the most consistent practitioners.
So now the question is 'what could we call those particular military historians?'
Bear in mind that they do the counterfactual analysis excessively.
single-word-requests nouns
asked Apr 2 at 15:26
MuaMua
112
closed as unclear what you're asking by FumbleFingers, Hellion, JJJ, TrevorD, Neeku Apr 10 at 15:53
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
in short the noun defines 'thinking and talking about what ifs a lot'
Edit: Unfortunately none of the answers came with the word i'm looking for and I'm sorry I was not fully prepared when I first asked the question.
Context:
Counterfactual history uses hypothetical thought-experiments to imagine the probable results of changes in the historical record. The hypotheses are two-part conditional statements, consisting of an ‘if’ and a ‘then’ clause: if the Luftwaffe had won the air battle, then the Germans might have successfully invaded Britain. Military historians have used counterfactual analysis for centuries. Among professional historians, they are still the most consistent practitioners.
So now the question is 'what could we call those particular military historians?'
Bear in mind that they do the counterfactual analysis excessively.
single-word-requests nouns
asked Apr 2 at 15:26
MuaMua
112
closed as unclear what you're asking by FumbleFingers, Hellion, JJJ, TrevorD, Neeku Apr 10 at 15:53
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Do you have any research?
– W.E.
Apr 2 at 15:33
Probably most people who are obsessed with hypothetical "What If" scenarios are primarily focused on possible futures (where we don't know what will actually happen). But (at least in principle) for past situations we do know what did or didn't happen. So are you talking about people who think a lot about what might have happened (but in fact didn't), or what perhaps really happened (but maybe we can't be sure). And do these people think those possible past situations were / would have been good? Or are they glad they didn't happen ('cos they'd be bad?).
– FumbleFingers
Apr 2 at 15:37
@FumbleFingers it's for the situations that actually didn't happen in the past and i'm not sure about your second question but i reckon it's the former, maybe they tend to fantasize about what might have happened instead of what really happened.
– Mua
Apr 2 at 15:54
Please refer to the section on How do I ask a good question?. We need some context in order to understand & answer your Q. properly. Meanwhile your question has been automatically "flagged as low-quality because of its length and content."
– TrevorD
Apr 2 at 16:58
add a comment |
in short the noun defines 'thinking and talking about what ifs a lot'
Edit: Unfortunately none of the answers came with the word i'm looking for and I'm sorry I was not fully prepared when I first asked the question.
Context:
Counterfactual history uses hypothetical thought-experiments to imagine the probable results of changes in the historical record. The hypotheses are two-part conditional statements, consisting of an ‘if’ and a ‘then’ clause: if the Luftwaffe had won the air battle, then the Germans might have successfully invaded Britain. Military historians have used counterfactual analysis for centuries. Among professional historians, they are still the most consistent practitioners.
So now the question is 'what could we call those particular military historians?'
Bear in mind that they do the counterfactual analysis excessively.
single-word-requests nouns
asked Apr 2 at 15:26
MuaMua
112
in short the noun defines 'thinking and talking about what ifs a lot'
Edit: Unfortunately none of the answers came with the word i'm looking for and I'm sorry I was not fully prepared when I first asked the question.
Context:
Counterfactual history uses hypothetical thought-experiments to imagine the probable results of changes in the historical record. The hypotheses are two-part conditional statements, consisting of an ‘if’ and a ‘then’ clause: if the Luftwaffe had won the air battle, then the Germans might have successfully invaded Britain. Military historians have used counterfactual analysis for centuries. Among professional historians, they are still the most consistent practitioners.
So now the question is 'what could we call those particular military historians?'
Bear in mind that they do the counterfactual analysis excessively.
single-word-requests nouns
single-word-requests nouns
asked Apr 2 at 15:26
MuaMua
112
asked Apr 2 at 15:26
MuaMua
112
edited Apr 7 at 8:41
Mua
asked Apr 2 at 15:26
MuaMua
112
asked Apr 2 at 15:26
MuaMua
112
asked Apr 2 at 15:26
MuaMua
112
112
closed as unclear what you're asking by FumbleFingers, Hellion, JJJ, TrevorD, Neeku Apr 10 at 15:53
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as unclear what you're asking by FumbleFingers, Hellion, JJJ, TrevorD, Neeku Apr 10 at 15:53
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Do you have any research?
– W.E.
Apr 2 at 15:33
Probably most people who are obsessed with hypothetical "What If" scenarios are primarily focused on possible futures (where we don't know what will actually happen). But (at least in principle) for past situations we do know what did or didn't happen. So are you talking about people who think a lot about what might have happened (but in fact didn't), or what perhaps really happened (but maybe we can't be sure). And do these people think those possible past situations were / would have been good? Or are they glad they didn't happen ('cos they'd be bad?).
– FumbleFingers
Apr 2 at 15:37
@FumbleFingers it's for the situations that actually didn't happen in the past and i'm not sure about your second question but i reckon it's the former, maybe they tend to fantasize about what might have happened instead of what really happened.
– Mua
Apr 2 at 15:54
Please refer to the section on How do I ask a good question?. We need some context in order to understand & answer your Q. properly. Meanwhile your question has been automatically "flagged as low-quality because of its length and content."
– TrevorD
Apr 2 at 16:58
add a comment |
Do you have any research?
– W.E.
Apr 2 at 15:33
Probably most people who are obsessed with hypothetical "What If" scenarios are primarily focused on possible futures (where we don't know what will actually happen). But (at least in principle) for past situations we do know what did or didn't happen. So are you talking about people who think a lot about what might have happened (but in fact didn't), or what perhaps really happened (but maybe we can't be sure). And do these people think those possible past situations were / would have been good? Or are they glad they didn't happen ('cos they'd be bad?).
– FumbleFingers
Apr 2 at 15:37
@FumbleFingers it's for the situations that actually didn't happen in the past and i'm not sure about your second question but i reckon it's the former, maybe they tend to fantasize about what might have happened instead of what really happened.
– Mua
Apr 2 at 15:54
Please refer to the section on How do I ask a good question?. We need some context in order to understand & answer your Q. properly. Meanwhile your question has been automatically "flagged as low-quality because of its length and content."
– TrevorD
Apr 2 at 16:58
Do you have any research?
– W.E.
Apr 2 at 15:33
Do you have any research?
– W.E.
Apr 2 at 15:33
Probably most people who are obsessed with hypothetical "What If" scenarios are primarily focused on possible futures (where we don't know what will actually happen). But (at least in principle) for past situations we do know what did or didn't happen. So are you talking about people who think a lot about what might have happened (but in fact didn't), or what perhaps really happened (but maybe we can't be sure). And do these people think those possible past situations were / would have been good? Or are they glad they didn't happen ('cos they'd be bad?).
– FumbleFingers
Apr 2 at 15:37
Probably most people who are obsessed with hypothetical "What If" scenarios are primarily focused on possible futures (where we don't know what will actually happen). But (at least in principle) for past situations we do know what did or didn't happen. So are you talking about people who think a lot about what might have happened (but in fact didn't), or what perhaps really happened (but maybe we can't be sure). And do these people think those possible past situations were / would have been good? Or are they glad they didn't happen ('cos they'd be bad?).
– FumbleFingers
Apr 2 at 15:37
@FumbleFingers it's for the situations that actually didn't happen in the past and i'm not sure about your second question but i reckon it's the former, maybe they tend to fantasize about what might have happened instead of what really happened.
– Mua
Apr 2 at 15:54
@FumbleFingers it's for the situations that actually didn't happen in the past and i'm not sure about your second question but i reckon it's the former, maybe they tend to fantasize about what might have happened instead of what really happened.
– Mua
Apr 2 at 15:54
Please refer to the section on How do I ask a good question?. We need some context in order to understand & answer your Q. properly. Meanwhile your question has been automatically "flagged as low-quality because of its length and content."
– TrevorD
Apr 2 at 16:58
Please refer to the section on How do I ask a good question?. We need some context in order to understand & answer your Q. properly. Meanwhile your question has been automatically "flagged as low-quality because of its length and content."
– TrevorD
Apr 2 at 16:58
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
As for the 'thinking about what could have happened in the past all the time' part, I think retrospection fits quite nicely:
retrospection
NOUN
the act of thinking now about something in the past
Examples:
He is a man of action, not retrospection.
(Cambridge Dictionary)
However, I think speculation captures 'thinking and talking about what ifs a lot' better:
speculation
NOUN
ideas or guesses about something that is not known
(Merriam Webster)
Speculation might refer to the past, the present, or the future, though. If you meant 'the act of living in the past', then retrospection is a better choice, I guess.
answered Apr 2 at 17:54
crizziscrizzis
1363
add a comment |
I think it may be one of the following forms
from https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/woulda,_coulda,_shoulda:
shoulda, coulda, woulda
shoulda, woulda, coulda
woulda, shoulda, coulda
coulda, shoulda, woulda
coulda, woulda, shoulda
woulda, coulda, shoulda
"An expression of dismissiveness or disappointment concerning a statement, question, explanation, course of action, or occurrence involving hypothetical possibilities,
uncertain facts, or missed opportunities.
(This stems from expressing that someone could have, would have and/or should have done something)."
answered Apr 2 at 19:00
user307254user307254
5,4922518
add a comment |
‘Retrospection’, or if done in an especially sentimental way, ‘nostalgia’.
answered Apr 2 at 19:53
Inquisitive Inquisitive
1584
please add a source
– JJJ
Apr 2 at 19:56
Hi Inquisitive, welcome to EL&U. This isn't a bad start, but it's too short: the system has flagged it as "low-quality because of its length and content." An answer on EL&U is expected to be authoritative, detailed, and explain why it is correct. It's best if you edit your answer to provide more information - e.g., add a published definition of retrospection (linked to the source) and say why it suits the context. For further guidance, see How to Answer and take the EL&U Tour. :-)
– Chappo
Apr 4 at 22:46
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
As for the 'thinking about what could have happened in the past all the time' part, I think retrospection fits quite nicely:
retrospection
NOUN
the act of thinking now about something in the past
Examples:
He is a man of action, not retrospection.
(Cambridge Dictionary)
However, I think speculation captures 'thinking and talking about what ifs a lot' better:
speculation
NOUN
ideas or guesses about something that is not known
(Merriam Webster)
Speculation might refer to the past, the present, or the future, though. If you meant 'the act of living in the past', then retrospection is a better choice, I guess.
answered Apr 2 at 17:54
crizziscrizzis
1363
add a comment |
As for the 'thinking about what could have happened in the past all the time' part, I think retrospection fits quite nicely:
retrospection
NOUN
the act of thinking now about something in the past
Examples:
He is a man of action, not retrospection.
(Cambridge Dictionary)
However, I think speculation captures 'thinking and talking about what ifs a lot' better:
speculation
NOUN
ideas or guesses about something that is not known
(Merriam Webster)
Speculation might refer to the past, the present, or the future, though. If you meant 'the act of living in the past', then retrospection is a better choice, I guess.
answered Apr 2 at 17:54
crizziscrizzis
1363
add a comment |
As for the 'thinking about what could have happened in the past all the time' part, I think retrospection fits quite nicely:
retrospection
NOUN
the act of thinking now about something in the past
Examples:
He is a man of action, not retrospection.
(Cambridge Dictionary)
However, I think speculation captures 'thinking and talking about what ifs a lot' better:
speculation
NOUN
ideas or guesses about something that is not known
(Merriam Webster)
Speculation might refer to the past, the present, or the future, though. If you meant 'the act of living in the past', then retrospection is a better choice, I guess.
answered Apr 2 at 17:54
crizziscrizzis
1363
As for the 'thinking about what could have happened in the past all the time' part, I think retrospection fits quite nicely:
retrospection
NOUN
the act of thinking now about something in the past
Examples:
He is a man of action, not retrospection.
(Cambridge Dictionary)
However, I think speculation captures 'thinking and talking about what ifs a lot' better:
speculation
NOUN
ideas or guesses about something that is not known
(Merriam Webster)
Speculation might refer to the past, the present, or the future, though. If you meant 'the act of living in the past', then retrospection is a better choice, I guess.
answered Apr 2 at 17:54
crizziscrizzis
1363
answered Apr 2 at 17:54
crizziscrizzis
1363
answered Apr 2 at 17:54
crizziscrizzis
1363
answered Apr 2 at 17:54
crizziscrizzis
1363
1363
add a comment |
add a comment |
I think it may be one of the following forms
from https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/woulda,_coulda,_shoulda:
shoulda, coulda, woulda
shoulda, woulda, coulda
woulda, shoulda, coulda
coulda, shoulda, woulda
coulda, woulda, shoulda
woulda, coulda, shoulda
"An expression of dismissiveness or disappointment concerning a statement, question, explanation, course of action, or occurrence involving hypothetical possibilities,
uncertain facts, or missed opportunities.
(This stems from expressing that someone could have, would have and/or should have done something)."
answered Apr 2 at 19:00
user307254user307254
5,4922518
add a comment |
I think it may be one of the following forms
from https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/woulda,_coulda,_shoulda:
shoulda, coulda, woulda
shoulda, woulda, coulda
woulda, shoulda, coulda
coulda, shoulda, woulda
coulda, woulda, shoulda
woulda, coulda, shoulda
"An expression of dismissiveness or disappointment concerning a statement, question, explanation, course of action, or occurrence involving hypothetical possibilities,
uncertain facts, or missed opportunities.
(This stems from expressing that someone could have, would have and/or should have done something)."
answered Apr 2 at 19:00
user307254user307254
5,4922518
add a comment |
I think it may be one of the following forms
from https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/woulda,_coulda,_shoulda:
shoulda, coulda, woulda
shoulda, woulda, coulda
woulda, shoulda, coulda
coulda, shoulda, woulda
coulda, woulda, shoulda
woulda, coulda, shoulda
"An expression of dismissiveness or disappointment concerning a statement, question, explanation, course of action, or occurrence involving hypothetical possibilities,
uncertain facts, or missed opportunities.
(This stems from expressing that someone could have, would have and/or should have done something)."
answered Apr 2 at 19:00
user307254user307254
5,4922518
I think it may be one of the following forms
from https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/woulda,_coulda,_shoulda:
shoulda, coulda, woulda
shoulda, woulda, coulda
woulda, shoulda, coulda
coulda, shoulda, woulda
coulda, woulda, shoulda
woulda, coulda, shoulda
"An expression of dismissiveness or disappointment concerning a statement, question, explanation, course of action, or occurrence involving hypothetical possibilities,
uncertain facts, or missed opportunities.
(This stems from expressing that someone could have, would have and/or should have done something)."
answered Apr 2 at 19:00
user307254user307254
5,4922518
answered Apr 2 at 19:00
user307254user307254
5,4922518
answered Apr 2 at 19:00
user307254user307254
5,4922518
answered Apr 2 at 19:00
user307254user307254
5,4922518
5,4922518
add a comment |
add a comment |
‘Retrospection’, or if done in an especially sentimental way, ‘nostalgia’.
answered Apr 2 at 19:53
Inquisitive Inquisitive
1584
please add a source
– JJJ
Apr 2 at 19:56
Hi Inquisitive, welcome to EL&U. This isn't a bad start, but it's too short: the system has flagged it as "low-quality because of its length and content." An answer on EL&U is expected to be authoritative, detailed, and explain why it is correct. It's best if you edit your answer to provide more information - e.g., add a published definition of retrospection (linked to the source) and say why it suits the context. For further guidance, see How to Answer and take the EL&U Tour. :-)
– Chappo
Apr 4 at 22:46
add a comment |
‘Retrospection’, or if done in an especially sentimental way, ‘nostalgia’.
answered Apr 2 at 19:53
Inquisitive Inquisitive
1584
please add a source
– JJJ
Apr 2 at 19:56
Hi Inquisitive, welcome to EL&U. This isn't a bad start, but it's too short: the system has flagged it as "low-quality because of its length and content." An answer on EL&U is expected to be authoritative, detailed, and explain why it is correct. It's best if you edit your answer to provide more information - e.g., add a published definition of retrospection (linked to the source) and say why it suits the context. For further guidance, see How to Answer and take the EL&U Tour. :-)
– Chappo
Apr 4 at 22:46
add a comment |
‘Retrospection’, or if done in an especially sentimental way, ‘nostalgia’.
answered Apr 2 at 19:53
Inquisitive Inquisitive
1584
‘Retrospection’, or if done in an especially sentimental way, ‘nostalgia’.
answered Apr 2 at 19:53
Inquisitive Inquisitive
1584
answered Apr 2 at 19:53
Inquisitive Inquisitive
1584
answered Apr 2 at 19:53
Inquisitive Inquisitive
1584
answered Apr 2 at 19:53
Inquisitive Inquisitive
1584
1584
please add a source
– JJJ
Apr 2 at 19:56
Hi Inquisitive, welcome to EL&U. This isn't a bad start, but it's too short: the system has flagged it as "low-quality because of its length and content." An answer on EL&U is expected to be authoritative, detailed, and explain why it is correct. It's best if you edit your answer to provide more information - e.g., add a published definition of retrospection (linked to the source) and say why it suits the context. For further guidance, see How to Answer and take the EL&U Tour. :-)
– Chappo
Apr 4 at 22:46
add a comment |
please add a source
– JJJ
Apr 2 at 19:56
Hi Inquisitive, welcome to EL&U. This isn't a bad start, but it's too short: the system has flagged it as "low-quality because of its length and content." An answer on EL&U is expected to be authoritative, detailed, and explain why it is correct. It's best if you edit your answer to provide more information - e.g., add a published definition of retrospection (linked to the source) and say why it suits the context. For further guidance, see How to Answer and take the EL&U Tour. :-)
– Chappo
Apr 4 at 22:46
please add a source
– JJJ
Apr 2 at 19:56
please add a source
– JJJ
Apr 2 at 19:56
Hi Inquisitive, welcome to EL&U. This isn't a bad start, but it's too short: the system has flagged it as "low-quality because of its length and content." An answer on EL&U is expected to be authoritative, detailed, and explain why it is correct. It's best if you edit your answer to provide more information - e.g., add a published definition of retrospection (linked to the source) and say why it suits the context. For further guidance, see How to Answer and take the EL&U Tour. :-)
– Chappo
Apr 4 at 22:46
Hi Inquisitive, welcome to EL&U. This isn't a bad start, but it's too short: the system has flagged it as "low-quality because of its length and content." An answer on EL&U is expected to be authoritative, detailed, and explain why it is correct. It's best if you edit your answer to provide more information - e.g., add a published definition of retrospection (linked to the source) and say why it suits the context. For further guidance, see How to Answer and take the EL&U Tour. :-)
– Chappo
Apr 4 at 22:46
add a comment |
Do you have any research?
– W.E.
Apr 2 at 15:33
Probably most people who are obsessed with hypothetical "What If" scenarios are primarily focused on possible futures (where we don't know what will actually happen). But (at least in principle) for past situations we do know what did or didn't happen. So are you talking about people who think a lot about what might have happened (but in fact didn't), or what perhaps really happened (but maybe we can't be sure). And do these people think those possible past situations were / would have been good? Or are they glad they didn't happen ('cos they'd be bad?).
– FumbleFingers
Apr 2 at 15:37
@FumbleFingers it's for the situations that actually didn't happen in the past and i'm not sure about your second question but i reckon it's the former, maybe they tend to fantasize about what might have happened instead of what really happened.
– Mua
Apr 2 at 15:54
Please refer to the section on How do I ask a good question?. We need some context in order to understand & answer your Q. properly. Meanwhile your question has been automatically "flagged as low-quality because of its length and content."
– TrevorD
Apr 2 at 16:58