I’m having the same question come up in my work. So, Presequent or sursequent or supersequent all seem like they could work. But, I would like to know if I am reinventing the wheel. I don’t think the original question was answered properly because this isn’t a question about the conditional so much as the order in which it is stated or read.
It becomes clear when dealing with bi-conditionals.
A iff B
A and B each serve as one another’s consequent and antecedent in A if B and A only if B.
In functions, the term surjection is used as in super-jection for half of the Bijection. (injections are the other half).
In family trees, I believe it is ascendents and descendants.
In project or task managment, Parent-tasks and Child-tasks are sometimes parent-tasks and sub-tasks.
Similarly, predecessor and successor for dependencies.
First and second conditional clauses are part of grammar.
main and dependent clauses seem to parallel consequent and antecedent along with their Greek counterparts, protasis, apodosis.
“prosequent” and “antsequent” seems like mixing latin and greek roots unnecessarily.
So, isn’t sur- or super- the right prefix to use with subsequent when tracking the “sequents?”
Thanks for indulging this! This seems particularly important for necessity and sufficiency when considering “because and only because” statements, too.