Hi there,

Suppose you wanted to enumerate the goals you would like to reach by (e.g.) 2005, would the title of that list then read:

"Goals by 2005" or
"Goals until 2005" or
"Goals up to 2005" ?

Or would it need a verb in any case, such as:

"Goals to be reached by 2005" or
"Goals I want to reach by 2005" ?

Thanks for any help.

Cheers

Godot

PS: Don't wait for me ...

Dear Godot: I like the last one on your list best.
My goal is to be alive in 2005.
The statistics are not favorable.

Thik you need three lists:
What I want by 2005
What I need by 2005
What I got by 2005

Or would it need a verb in any case, such as:
"Goals to be reached by 2005" or
"Goals I want to reach by 2005" ?

Hi Godot - well, you've already proved that the waiting wasn't in vain!

I'd say that you do need a verb for this one. If you just have "goals by 2005" (which is closest to the right meaning) it also carries the second meaning of "goals I will have by 2005" i.e. it may be about the goals you want to have rather than actually attaining current goals.

I think that makes sense.

Fisk

Just because you want to reach a goal by 2005 doesn't necessarily mean you're going to reach it.

I like the to-the-point expression of "Goals by 2005," especially if displayed as a heading to a list:

[u]Goals by 2005[/u]

1. Perfection of ultimate frozen custard
2. Ability to run the mile in under 15 minutes
3. Control of temper in almost every situation
4. Memorization of all definitions in Mrs. Byrne's dictionary

I also like what wow wrote.

Best regards,
WW
P.S. Those are really not my goals. I was really just illustrating with things that could be plausible for me, but aren't realities for me.

P.P.S. I see that [u] and [/u] do not produce an underline. Does anyone know what we do to produce one?

Just because you want to reach a goal by 2005 doesn't necessarily mean you're going to reach it

Ah - I did fail to express my meaning

Assume you are 28 years old (why not?!) and you have your list of Goals by 2005. Included in those goals is "Get a suss on life as a 30-something". That's not a goal that's meaningful for you to have now but it is a meaningful goal for you to adopt by 2005.

"Goals to achieve by 2005"
means something different to
"Goals to adopt by 2005"

- and which of those two does "Goals by 2005" mean?

Please tell me you understand what I'm trying to get across here!

We're starting to sound like linguists.

OK, Fish. You wrote:

"Goals to achieve by 2005"
means something different to
"Goals to adopt by 2005"

- and which of those two does "Goals by 2005" mean?

Please tell me you understand what I'm trying to get across here!

I don't think "Goals by 2005" excludes either goals to achieve or goals to adopt. The confusion would be your listing both goals to achieve and goals to adopt on the same list. You'd have to remember which was which. In that case, you'd do better to have two separate lists. However, I would think most people reading "Goals by 2005" would think you'd meant "Goals Reached by 2005." If you were writing something you were publishing, you'd probably want to include the verb "reached." But if you were just setting up a list of goals you wanted to reach, the "Goals by 2005" would do the trick. I don't think, in other words, most people think about the goals they want to establish by a date in the future.

Let me illustrate.

Goals by 2005: (here meaning "to adopt by")

1. Stop cussin' at dumb drivers
2. Start balancing my checkbook
3. Stop losing my check register
4. Start organ lessons

I think most people, happening across such a list named "Goals by 2005" would think that those were the goals I wanted to have met by 2005. I think the only way I could indicate that those were goals I wanted to adopt by 2005, even if not having carried through on them and met them, would be to write "Goals to Adopt by 2005."

I'm agreeing with you and disagreeing at the same time.

Now, do you understand what I'm trying to get across here?

WW

well yeah, shona, but what I don't get is why you'd want to wait around to 2005 to adopt some goals -- unless of course, you were shooting to be the vice president of procrastinators anonymous next year.

>> My goal is to be alive in 2005. The statistics are not favorable.

Unless you're in your nineties, the life-expectancy tables give you favorable odds.

"Three year plan?"

Now, do you understand what I'm trying to get across here?

Yep. You only have to worry about clarifying (with a verb) if you're publishing, as otherwise by far the most common interpretation of "Goals by 2005" would be the correct one.
My suggested ambiguity is pretty much academic.

I think part of the difficulty (well, for me anyway ) is that a goal is something you have now that happens in the future. "Future goals" is a tautology, but on the other hand it may help create a distinction from "past goals" that you have or haven't achieved already.

Reminds me of the World Cup final, when I was telling people "I'm not expecting to be surprised", meaning that I was expecting the favourites (Brazil) to walk it. Logically speaking the statement is a tautology, but in practice it's meaningful and informative. I feel this sleight of hand is also caused by a confusion of tenses.

But I can't quite put my finger on it.

Suppose this is all getting into linguistics and philosophy.


Fisk
(candidate for VP of Procrastinators Anonymous, 2005)

My goal is to be alive in 2005.
The statistics are not favorable.

Don't worry, Uncle Bill-- you'll always live in my heart. [big smooch e]

- - and anyway, Bill, Disraeli was right about 'em!

(My personal creed is that I am immortal - until proved otherwise!)

to adopt the goal? I never saw this expression before and my Longman says only “to achieve the goal”. Does it mean “to adopt the plan’’? Is it an American expression?

to adopt the goal? I never saw this expression before

I'm not surprised, vika - you wouldn't have call to use this expression much! Perhaps if you were talking about a company adopting the goals of its parent company.

We were trying to express fairly subtle (almost philosophical) distinctions of meaning, so the language wasn't commonplace.