I am trying to understand what is the lexical difference between next sentences:
If I went to London, I would see the Thames
If I had gone to London, I would have seen the Thames
If I went to London, I would see the Thames.
can mean two things:
1 it describes a repeated past activity.
2 it describes a non-past irrealis. The speaker is not actually going to London.
If I had gone to London, I would have seen the Thames.
This is a past irrealis. The person did not, in the past, actually go to London.
Could you drop London, leave out even the river and compare only the sights? How could I would see… have the same translation as I would have seen…
(Who says the translation to your language is the same… and what is your language, please? It might make a big difference…)