Is this acceptable?
In 2003, my site got about 40,000 unique visitors per month.
...or do I have to say "would get"?
In 2003, my site got about 40,000 unique visitors per month.
...or do I have to say "would get"?
got / would get
I would say "would get" for something that has definitely ended. You site site is still getting visitors, right? So I think you sentence is fine as it is.
I would say that "got" is preferable, and I don't see it that it ending would change anything. I can't think of many times the "would" past construction is preferable. I suppose if you're talking about something conditioned on something else, that would make sense: "My car would overheat every time I drove it on a hot day".
"would get" would have more the connotation of an estimation IMO, but both are OK.
Well, "would" implies repeated or habitual action.
For example, I believe the following is correct:
"In 2003, he would visit me every month".
If so, can't I also say "In 2003, my site would get 40,000 visitors per month."?
For example, I believe the following is correct:
"In 2003, he would visit me every month".
If so, can't I also say "In 2003, my site would get 40,000 visitors per month."?
"In 2003, he would visit me every month".
Sounds a bit off to me but correct. But that is not the right comparison to "In 2003, my site would get 40,000 visitors per month."
Hearing the latter sentence, I'd suspect that that person no longer visits you, whereas I presume your site is still getting visitors.
Sounds a bit off to me but correct. But that is not the right comparison to "In 2003, my site would get 40,000 visitors per month."
Hearing the latter sentence, I'd suspect that that person no longer visits you, whereas I presume your site is still getting visitors.
Besides its well-known feature of implying repeated action, I think the 'would' construction of past sentences may evoke, sometimes, a sensation of, um, how shall I put it, a feeling that a result has finally been achieved despite forces working against it, at last.
_In 2002, they started to push for changes in the content of my website, to the point of harassment. They told me I was going to stay well below the mark of 30,000 unique visitors per month the next year, because the website read too offbeat. They tried to tamper with my vision as much as they could.
In 2003, my site would get about 40,000 unique visitors per month._
I don't think you're going to bring about a big difference if you change "would get" into "got" there. But I still think "would get" is slighly more appropriate.
I could be wrong. After all, it's just a feeling by someone speaking English as a second language.
With every good wish,
Achab
_In 2002, they started to push for changes in the content of my website, to the point of harassment. They told me I was going to stay well below the mark of 30,000 unique visitors per month the next year, because the website read too offbeat. They tried to tamper with my vision as much as they could.
In 2003, my site would get about 40,000 unique visitors per month._
I don't think you're going to bring about a big difference if you change "would get" into "got" there. But I still think "would get" is slighly more appropriate.
I could be wrong. After all, it's just a feeling by someone speaking English as a second language.
With every good wish,
Achab
John:
"I'd suspect that that person no longer visits you, whereas I presume your site is still getting visitors."
Yeah, but the number is higher than 40,000 per month. Doesn't that make the "would get" version okay?
Achab:
I think the reason why "would get" works better in your story is because the whole story is in the past. "Would" lets you express that "future in the past" quality. Sort of like "Little did they know that the site would get 40,000 visitors per month in 2003."
The event related in this way does not have to be unexpected or achieved in spite of difficulties:
"In 2001, I met the woman who would become my wife."
"I bought the winning lottery ticket with money I had taken from Paul's wallet. He would give me a lot of grief for that later on, even after I bought him a nice gift."
"I'd suspect that that person no longer visits you, whereas I presume your site is still getting visitors."
Yeah, but the number is higher than 40,000 per month. Doesn't that make the "would get" version okay?
Achab:
I think the reason why "would get" works better in your story is because the whole story is in the past. "Would" lets you express that "future in the past" quality. Sort of like "Little did they know that the site would get 40,000 visitors per month in 2003."
The event related in this way does not have to be unexpected or achieved in spite of difficulties:
"In 2001, I met the woman who would become my wife."
"I bought the winning lottery ticket with money I had taken from Paul's wallet. He would give me a lot of grief for that later on, even after I bought him a nice gift."
Order of preferred as it sounds in my mind:
1) "In 2003, my site received 40,000 unique visitors per month."
2) "In 2003, my site had 40,000 unique visitors per month."
3) "In 2003, my site would get 40,000 unique visitors per month."
I would not use "got" or "would have" as they just don't sound right.
1) "In 2003, my site received 40,000 unique visitors per month."
2) "In 2003, my site had 40,000 unique visitors per month."
3) "In 2003, my site would get 40,000 unique visitors per month."
I would not use "got" or "would have" as they just don't sound right.
Tom,
Concerning your question - no, I don't believe so. But hey, it's just what I feel that sounds more appropriate to me. Let's hear what others have to say.
Small example supporting my opinion:
"Two months ago, I would get two visitors. A month ago, I would get only one visitor. This month, I got nobody."
Doesn't sound too great, huh? It would've been much better if I'd stayed with "got" all the time.
Concerning your question - no, I don't believe so. But hey, it's just what I feel that sounds more appropriate to me. Let's hear what others have to say.
Small example supporting my opinion:
"Two months ago, I would get two visitors. A month ago, I would get only one visitor. This month, I got nobody."
Doesn't sound too great, huh? It would've been much better if I'd stayed with "got" all the time.
John, your example shows nothing because it does not describe repeated action (you skipped the "per month" part).