There are two main approaches to account for the semantic contribution of the past morpheme in X-marked (traditionally called subjunctive) conditionals: (i) the past-as-modal approach (Iatridou 2000; Schulz 2014; Karawani & Zeijlstra 2013, and Mackay 2019) which takes past tense morphemes to contribute either temporal reference to a time different from the present time or modal reference to a set of worlds different from the worlds in the context set (as in X-marked conditionals); (ii) the past-as-past approach (Ippolito 2013; Arregui 2005; Romero 2014, Khoo 2015, Mirrazi 2022) which takes the past tense morpheme to always have a uniform temporal meaning. Under the latter approach, the subjunctive interpretation arises because the structural position of the past tense in X-marked conditionals enables it to manipulate the time parameter of the modal, instead of shifting the temporal reference of the antecedent. The evidence has been inconclusive in adjudicating between the two approaches. This paper argues that the two approaches make different predictions regarding the interaction between the antecedent tense and X. Providing evidence from the temporal orientation of antecedents of X-marked conditionals in non-SOT languages, the paper shows that cross-linguistic data support the past-as-past approach.