Your example of the figurative "aim at" sounds bizarre to me. I think it's always "aim to" plus the infinitive. I would only say "aim at" in relation to a target:elroy said:Welcome to the forums, Olivier.
Tough question - let me try:
I aim at doing something. = I strive to do something.
By using illustrations in class, I aim at enhancing my theoretical lectures with visual aids.
I aim to do something. = I attempt/plan to do something.
This year, I aim to get back in touch with all of my high school friends.
For some reason I can't quite explain, I don't like that construct.elroy said:By using illustrations in class, I aim at enhancing my theoretical lectures with visual aids.
I suggest using "aim" (at/to) when there is a, hopefully literal, "target" you wish to hit.olefebvr said:Hello,
I thought it was all clear with the first answer but it is getting more and more complicated indeed.
The things that "aims" in my context is a project, a research, a work, a study, etc. For instance:
- this project aims at applying the new results to this application field...
- this research field aims to go beyond usual devices...
With the meaning of "intend", "strive", "attempt".
Which form would you suggest ?
Thank you for your help,
Olivier
Hello everyone, I hope I'm doing this right as this is the first time I have written here, but I've been using these forums for a few months now and have found some extremely useful stuff, thank you everyone. I just wanted to add to this discussion (only 5 years late!) that I agree with Elroy's initial analysis, and so does the free dictionary.Welcome to the forums, Olivier.
Tough question - let me try:
I aim at doing something. = I strive to do something.
By using illustrations in class, I aim at enhancing my theoretical lectures with visual aids.
I aim to do something. = I attempt/plan to do something.
This year, I aim to get back in touch with all of my high school friends.
Hm...I'm not sure that's a good explanation. Perhaps someone else can explain the difference better - if there is one at all.![]()
Does this work?...
However, I would use it in the passive: This policy is aimed at eliminating poverty.
A rather inadequate grammatical rule.the correct grammatical rule was "to aim at something"
1745 E. Haywood Female Spectator II. 313 But to return to that Subject, which..both the above-cited Letters, in my Judgment, aim to prove.
2011 Hull Daily Mail (Nexis) 11 July 4 Like all NHS organisations, our capital budget has been reduced significantly as we aim to make substantial savings over the next five years.
"We aimed to win the war."
"We aimed at winning the war."
"This paper aims to show that the Moon is made of cheese."
"This paper aims at showing that the Moon is made of cheese."
Hello, Andy,
Why does the second example work but not the fourth?
Many thanks.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps it's the alliteration that makes it work - "aiming" ... "training".
The best explanation that I found on Oxford Dictionaries Site
Well, I thought the whole point of this thread was to clear up whether you could use aim with at or to and based on these examples it is clear to me that you can use them both. Sometimes it is not necessary a deep explanation to understand the practical usage of a preposition.It doesn't offer an explanation, it provides example sentences showing the range of prepositions which can be used with "aim".
If you read this thread you will see clear statements that you cannot always use "aim to" and "aim at" interchangeably. For example see posts #4, 15 and 17.and based on these examples it is clear to me that you can use them both.
well, I never said interchangeably I just said that both can be used. The examples are just for people to understand better when to use "to" or "at". If an explanation is needed then read post #2. I think the difference is pretty clear there.If you read this thread you will see clear statements that you cannot always use "aim to" and "aim at" interchangeably. For example see posts #4, 15 and 17.
Indeed. This is not an argument over grammar or style, it is a thread that, without argument, has discussed idiomatic usage.Hm...I'm not sure that's a good explanation.
Does the continuous tense makes "to train" work in They're aiming to train everybody by the end of the year?I would use "to train" in that example, but that's just my preference. They're aiming to train everybody by the end of the year. However, I think that the continuous tense makes "at training" much more idiomatic than with the simple present.
...
Examples from earlier in the thread:
I aim to enhance my theoretical lectures with visual aids.
This policy is aimed at eliminating poverty.
This policy is aimed to eliminate poverty.![]()
By using illustrations in class, I aim to enhance my theoretical lectures with visual aids.
However, I would use it in the passive: This policy is aimed at eliminating poverty.
You saidDoes this work?
"This policy is aimed to eliminate poverty."
"Should be"? Apart from it not being my example, why "should"? "Does not work"? There is nothing wrong with using the passive, and using the passive in the way e2efour did in his example is perfectly normal in British English - which both he and I speak.Your third example should in fact be
This policy aims to eliminate poverty.
There is no reason to make it passive, and it does not work. Does it sound better now?
Who claimed that it did? Not I, as should be perfectly clear from my use ofsecond and third examples are passive. Whilst this works for aim at, it doesn't work for aim to