Taking as her point of departure the recurrent use in the languages of the world of "past tense" morphology to express counterfactuality, Iatridou (2000) proposes that a unified account of temporal and modal uses of such morphology can be constructed in terms of a relation of set-theoretic exclusion between a topic time or world and a speaker time or world. On such an account, the relevant morphology would realize a feature specification [+Excl(usion)] whose meaning in the temporal domain is that topic time excludes speaker time and whose meaning in the modal domain is that the topic world(s) exclude the speaker world(s). In this talk, I argue that while Iatridou's attempt to provide a unified account of temporal and modal uses of "exclusion morphology" along these lines is unsuccessful, such an account is in fact attainable. The major obstacle, not confronted by Iatridou, is the overlapping distribution of the representatives of [+Excl] and [-Excl] in the modal domain, namely subjunctive and indicative conditionals: schematically speaking, subjunctive conditionals occur in environments a and b and indicative conditionals in environments b and c, thus threatening to derail the project of accounting for the distinction between the two in terms of a single binary feature. I propose to deal with this problem by specifying subjunctive and indicative morphology, respectively, only for the distinctive environments a and c and allowing both to appear in environment b by default. This proposal is implemented at the semantic end by a definition of [+Excl] that is satisfied in the environment a that allows only subjunctives, unsatisfied in the environment c that allows only indicatives, and undefined in the environment b that allows both. It is implemented at the morphological end, within the framework of Distributed Morphology, in terms of a version of Halle's (1997) Subset Principle. The first half of the talk concludes with a brief consideration of the temporal domain, in which I sharpen Iatridou's claim that the temporal meaning of [+Excl] involves the relation between topic time and speaker time by showing that the relation of topic time to eventuality time, which Iatridou does not consider in detail, is expressed by a separate feature. As a result of the overlapping distributional pattern referred to, subjunctive conditionals are in the general case ambiguous between counterfactual (environment a) and noncounterfactual (environment b) readings. The second half of the talk examines the factors that lead to disambiguation in favor of one or the other interpretation, a question that Iatridou treats only in an aprioristic fashion. It then uses the results of this investigation to clarify the interpretation of subjunctive conditionals relating to the future, among them a group that Iatridou labels "future less vivid" and claims to be counterfactual. I conclude that, in fact, future less vivids, properly defined, typically lack a counterfactual reading, and show that the presence or absence of that reading follows from a lexical property of the predicates involved. References Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In MIT working papers in linguistics 30, 425-449. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Iatridou, Sabine. 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31:231-270.