0

I am trying to understand what is the lexical difference between next sentences:

If I went to London, I would see the Thames

and

If I had gone to London, I would have seen the Thames

  • 1
    A simple internet research for "conditional sentences" would have yielded ample results for your question. What you're looking for is Second and Third Conditionals. – ParaDice Apr 20 '17 at 10:00
  • thanks for your advice but I am trying to translate it to my language and the translation is same for both 2 and 3 – user2999428 Apr 20 '17 at 10:14
1

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.

and

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.

-1

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…)

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.