Verb tense?

Hi Ivan,
Yes there is a difference but it is subtle. I'll try to explain how i see it, but i hope others will jump in and say what they think.

In the first sentence you are speaking about something that has happened. Think of yourself as a biographer who is relating the events in a person's life. You already know what happened, so the way you say it is as in the first sentence--he

It's the same difference that there is between "will" and "to be going to".
There are several threads that explain the difference here. Try using the search function (that white box in the top-right corner of the page). A direct link to a search for "will going" is:

It's not a clear-cut distinction.

Surely I've checked some online resources dealing with the subject. They say 'would' is used for voluntary actions and 'was going to' for plans. Aren't plans also voluntary actions? I'm puzzled by it. For all I know the two forms can be used interchangebly in most situations.

Anyways, thank you for your input.

Ivanhr They say 'would' is used for voluntary actions and 'was going to' for plans. Aren't plans also voluntary actions?

That's the common "rule" you can find in grammar books, and it's just confusing. As you said, both "will" and "to be going to" can often be used interchangeably. The difference is subtle, and I have yet to find a clear answer. Sorry, lol.

Ivanhr... are there any differences in meaning between the two?

The first has a more objective flavor. The point of view of the author is entirely in the present and omniscient.

The second has a slightly more subjective flavor. It almost looks at the spending of the two years as Joe's plan.

You'll probably find that the

CJ, I am too biased towards the first version.

When you say 'the point of view of the author is entirely in the present' I wonder why he didn't use the simple past tense spent instead of 'would spend'.

In my view, the author must have put himself in a time (in the past) between the moving and spending events.

Joe (had) moved to New York in 2002 where he

IvanhrIn my view, the author must have put himself in a time (in the past) between the moving and spending events.

I would call the time of the move a secondary reference point. The author looks forward from that point while remaining "omnisciently" in the present. He already knows what the future of that past would be / was to be.

A

CalifJimActually, now that I think about it, was to spend conveys the same idea as would spend.

CJ

It sure does. My grammar book suggests just that. Thanks CJ