Is it necessary to use “to” multiple times in this context?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
This is the sentence:
Entrepreneurial leadership is the leader’s ability to influence others, to nurture the culture, to manage resources, and to develop a competitive behavior to seek opportunities and advantages (Ireland et al., 2003).
In my language, we don't repeat the equivalent of "to" multiple times and it's correct to use it just once (before the first verb).
So I was wondering, would the following sentence be grammatically correct:
Entrepreneurial leadership is the leader’s ability to influence others, nurture the culture, manage resources, and develop a competitive behavior to seek opportunities and advantages (Ireland et al., 2003).
Or is it necessary to use "to" before each verb?
grammaticality
add a comment |
This is the sentence:
Entrepreneurial leadership is the leader’s ability to influence others, to nurture the culture, to manage resources, and to develop a competitive behavior to seek opportunities and advantages (Ireland et al., 2003).
In my language, we don't repeat the equivalent of "to" multiple times and it's correct to use it just once (before the first verb).
So I was wondering, would the following sentence be grammatically correct:
Entrepreneurial leadership is the leader’s ability to influence others, nurture the culture, manage resources, and develop a competitive behavior to seek opportunities and advantages (Ireland et al., 2003).
Or is it necessary to use "to" before each verb?
grammaticality
1
It's a question of style. Plus in some cases (not this one) the seemingly-redundant "to" usage can help to disambiguate a complex sentence.
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
(Consider if the comma-separated clauses might seem to parallel "the leader's ability" rather than "influence others".)
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
add a comment |
This is the sentence:
Entrepreneurial leadership is the leader’s ability to influence others, to nurture the culture, to manage resources, and to develop a competitive behavior to seek opportunities and advantages (Ireland et al., 2003).
In my language, we don't repeat the equivalent of "to" multiple times and it's correct to use it just once (before the first verb).
So I was wondering, would the following sentence be grammatically correct:
Entrepreneurial leadership is the leader’s ability to influence others, nurture the culture, manage resources, and develop a competitive behavior to seek opportunities and advantages (Ireland et al., 2003).
Or is it necessary to use "to" before each verb?
grammaticality
This is the sentence:
Entrepreneurial leadership is the leader’s ability to influence others, to nurture the culture, to manage resources, and to develop a competitive behavior to seek opportunities and advantages (Ireland et al., 2003).
In my language, we don't repeat the equivalent of "to" multiple times and it's correct to use it just once (before the first verb).
So I was wondering, would the following sentence be grammatically correct:
Entrepreneurial leadership is the leader’s ability to influence others, nurture the culture, manage resources, and develop a competitive behavior to seek opportunities and advantages (Ireland et al., 2003).
Or is it necessary to use "to" before each verb?
grammaticality
grammaticality
asked Apr 7 at 20:56
navidnavid
135
135
1
It's a question of style. Plus in some cases (not this one) the seemingly-redundant "to" usage can help to disambiguate a complex sentence.
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
(Consider if the comma-separated clauses might seem to parallel "the leader's ability" rather than "influence others".)
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
add a comment |
1
It's a question of style. Plus in some cases (not this one) the seemingly-redundant "to" usage can help to disambiguate a complex sentence.
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
(Consider if the comma-separated clauses might seem to parallel "the leader's ability" rather than "influence others".)
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
1
1
It's a question of style. Plus in some cases (not this one) the seemingly-redundant "to" usage can help to disambiguate a complex sentence.
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
It's a question of style. Plus in some cases (not this one) the seemingly-redundant "to" usage can help to disambiguate a complex sentence.
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
(Consider if the comma-separated clauses might seem to parallel "the leader's ability" rather than "influence others".)
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
(Consider if the comma-separated clauses might seem to parallel "the leader's ability" rather than "influence others".)
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
In your sentence, all the additional "to" seem redundant. But there are some instances where adding additional "to" may be necessary.
For example, in legal documents, when we are empowering someone to do certain acts, we use "to" after every comma to indicate that now a new power is being listed after the comma. Same goes for setting out duties. This is also found in laws.
Now, in this context, you would use additional "to" if you are not defining the entrepreneurial leadership but writing an instruction or expectation for someone to be hired as an entrepreneurial leader.
And consider that sometimes the "excessive" use of "to" makes it easier for the casual reader to follow the logic of the sentence without having to stop and diagram it.
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
add a comment |
The example you gave, of a sentence with fewer instances of the word “to” seems perfectly fine to me, as a native English speaker and grammar hobbyist.
I'm inclined to object to using "to" so many times in a single sentence because of general admonishments against redundancy in Strunk and White's "Elements of Style" among others.
Here's what Strunk and White wrote that seemed relevant in this case:
- Omit needless words. Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell. Many expressions in common use violate this principle.
However, I understand that this does not address the grammatical validity of the shorter sentence.
New contributor
Bob Bobaloobob is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Please elaborate your answer.
– JJJ
Apr 7 at 21:05
What seems perfectly fine to you? Using to multiple times, using it only once, or both versions of the sentence? And why?
– Jason Bassford
Apr 7 at 21:13
Sorry about the ambiguity. I’ve edited my response.
– Bob Bobaloobob
Apr 7 at 21:38
But are you saying that the first sentence is wrong??
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
Bob, you've posted an opinion but that's not what EL&U is aiming at - we're a Q&A site, not a forum. Please edit your answer to provide an authoritative response that explains why you can elide the "to", preferably citing a grammar source to support your argument. You might also touch on why a writer/speaker might consciously use "to" multiple times, i.e. what difference or impression does it make.
– Chappo
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f492994%2fis-it-necessary-to-use-to-multiple-times-in-this-context%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
In your sentence, all the additional "to" seem redundant. But there are some instances where adding additional "to" may be necessary.
For example, in legal documents, when we are empowering someone to do certain acts, we use "to" after every comma to indicate that now a new power is being listed after the comma. Same goes for setting out duties. This is also found in laws.
Now, in this context, you would use additional "to" if you are not defining the entrepreneurial leadership but writing an instruction or expectation for someone to be hired as an entrepreneurial leader.
And consider that sometimes the "excessive" use of "to" makes it easier for the casual reader to follow the logic of the sentence without having to stop and diagram it.
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
add a comment |
In your sentence, all the additional "to" seem redundant. But there are some instances where adding additional "to" may be necessary.
For example, in legal documents, when we are empowering someone to do certain acts, we use "to" after every comma to indicate that now a new power is being listed after the comma. Same goes for setting out duties. This is also found in laws.
Now, in this context, you would use additional "to" if you are not defining the entrepreneurial leadership but writing an instruction or expectation for someone to be hired as an entrepreneurial leader.
And consider that sometimes the "excessive" use of "to" makes it easier for the casual reader to follow the logic of the sentence without having to stop and diagram it.
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
add a comment |
In your sentence, all the additional "to" seem redundant. But there are some instances where adding additional "to" may be necessary.
For example, in legal documents, when we are empowering someone to do certain acts, we use "to" after every comma to indicate that now a new power is being listed after the comma. Same goes for setting out duties. This is also found in laws.
Now, in this context, you would use additional "to" if you are not defining the entrepreneurial leadership but writing an instruction or expectation for someone to be hired as an entrepreneurial leader.
In your sentence, all the additional "to" seem redundant. But there are some instances where adding additional "to" may be necessary.
For example, in legal documents, when we are empowering someone to do certain acts, we use "to" after every comma to indicate that now a new power is being listed after the comma. Same goes for setting out duties. This is also found in laws.
Now, in this context, you would use additional "to" if you are not defining the entrepreneurial leadership but writing an instruction or expectation for someone to be hired as an entrepreneurial leader.
answered 2 days ago
UsmanUsman
661258
661258
And consider that sometimes the "excessive" use of "to" makes it easier for the casual reader to follow the logic of the sentence without having to stop and diagram it.
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
add a comment |
And consider that sometimes the "excessive" use of "to" makes it easier for the casual reader to follow the logic of the sentence without having to stop and diagram it.
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
And consider that sometimes the "excessive" use of "to" makes it easier for the casual reader to follow the logic of the sentence without having to stop and diagram it.
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
And consider that sometimes the "excessive" use of "to" makes it easier for the casual reader to follow the logic of the sentence without having to stop and diagram it.
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
add a comment |
The example you gave, of a sentence with fewer instances of the word “to” seems perfectly fine to me, as a native English speaker and grammar hobbyist.
I'm inclined to object to using "to" so many times in a single sentence because of general admonishments against redundancy in Strunk and White's "Elements of Style" among others.
Here's what Strunk and White wrote that seemed relevant in this case:
- Omit needless words. Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell. Many expressions in common use violate this principle.
However, I understand that this does not address the grammatical validity of the shorter sentence.
New contributor
Bob Bobaloobob is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Please elaborate your answer.
– JJJ
Apr 7 at 21:05
What seems perfectly fine to you? Using to multiple times, using it only once, or both versions of the sentence? And why?
– Jason Bassford
Apr 7 at 21:13
Sorry about the ambiguity. I’ve edited my response.
– Bob Bobaloobob
Apr 7 at 21:38
But are you saying that the first sentence is wrong??
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
Bob, you've posted an opinion but that's not what EL&U is aiming at - we're a Q&A site, not a forum. Please edit your answer to provide an authoritative response that explains why you can elide the "to", preferably citing a grammar source to support your argument. You might also touch on why a writer/speaker might consciously use "to" multiple times, i.e. what difference or impression does it make.
– Chappo
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
The example you gave, of a sentence with fewer instances of the word “to” seems perfectly fine to me, as a native English speaker and grammar hobbyist.
I'm inclined to object to using "to" so many times in a single sentence because of general admonishments against redundancy in Strunk and White's "Elements of Style" among others.
Here's what Strunk and White wrote that seemed relevant in this case:
- Omit needless words. Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell. Many expressions in common use violate this principle.
However, I understand that this does not address the grammatical validity of the shorter sentence.
New contributor
Bob Bobaloobob is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Please elaborate your answer.
– JJJ
Apr 7 at 21:05
What seems perfectly fine to you? Using to multiple times, using it only once, or both versions of the sentence? And why?
– Jason Bassford
Apr 7 at 21:13
Sorry about the ambiguity. I’ve edited my response.
– Bob Bobaloobob
Apr 7 at 21:38
But are you saying that the first sentence is wrong??
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
Bob, you've posted an opinion but that's not what EL&U is aiming at - we're a Q&A site, not a forum. Please edit your answer to provide an authoritative response that explains why you can elide the "to", preferably citing a grammar source to support your argument. You might also touch on why a writer/speaker might consciously use "to" multiple times, i.e. what difference or impression does it make.
– Chappo
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
The example you gave, of a sentence with fewer instances of the word “to” seems perfectly fine to me, as a native English speaker and grammar hobbyist.
I'm inclined to object to using "to" so many times in a single sentence because of general admonishments against redundancy in Strunk and White's "Elements of Style" among others.
Here's what Strunk and White wrote that seemed relevant in this case:
- Omit needless words. Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell. Many expressions in common use violate this principle.
However, I understand that this does not address the grammatical validity of the shorter sentence.
New contributor
Bob Bobaloobob is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
The example you gave, of a sentence with fewer instances of the word “to” seems perfectly fine to me, as a native English speaker and grammar hobbyist.
I'm inclined to object to using "to" so many times in a single sentence because of general admonishments against redundancy in Strunk and White's "Elements of Style" among others.
Here's what Strunk and White wrote that seemed relevant in this case:
- Omit needless words. Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell. Many expressions in common use violate this principle.
However, I understand that this does not address the grammatical validity of the shorter sentence.
New contributor
Bob Bobaloobob is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 days ago
New contributor
Bob Bobaloobob is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Apr 7 at 21:01
Bob BobaloobobBob Bobaloobob
253
253
New contributor
Bob Bobaloobob is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Bob Bobaloobob is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Bob Bobaloobob is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Please elaborate your answer.
– JJJ
Apr 7 at 21:05
What seems perfectly fine to you? Using to multiple times, using it only once, or both versions of the sentence? And why?
– Jason Bassford
Apr 7 at 21:13
Sorry about the ambiguity. I’ve edited my response.
– Bob Bobaloobob
Apr 7 at 21:38
But are you saying that the first sentence is wrong??
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
Bob, you've posted an opinion but that's not what EL&U is aiming at - we're a Q&A site, not a forum. Please edit your answer to provide an authoritative response that explains why you can elide the "to", preferably citing a grammar source to support your argument. You might also touch on why a writer/speaker might consciously use "to" multiple times, i.e. what difference or impression does it make.
– Chappo
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
Please elaborate your answer.
– JJJ
Apr 7 at 21:05
What seems perfectly fine to you? Using to multiple times, using it only once, or both versions of the sentence? And why?
– Jason Bassford
Apr 7 at 21:13
Sorry about the ambiguity. I’ve edited my response.
– Bob Bobaloobob
Apr 7 at 21:38
But are you saying that the first sentence is wrong??
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
Bob, you've posted an opinion but that's not what EL&U is aiming at - we're a Q&A site, not a forum. Please edit your answer to provide an authoritative response that explains why you can elide the "to", preferably citing a grammar source to support your argument. You might also touch on why a writer/speaker might consciously use "to" multiple times, i.e. what difference or impression does it make.
– Chappo
2 days ago
Please elaborate your answer.
– JJJ
Apr 7 at 21:05
Please elaborate your answer.
– JJJ
Apr 7 at 21:05
What seems perfectly fine to you? Using to multiple times, using it only once, or both versions of the sentence? And why?
– Jason Bassford
Apr 7 at 21:13
What seems perfectly fine to you? Using to multiple times, using it only once, or both versions of the sentence? And why?
– Jason Bassford
Apr 7 at 21:13
Sorry about the ambiguity. I’ve edited my response.
– Bob Bobaloobob
Apr 7 at 21:38
Sorry about the ambiguity. I’ve edited my response.
– Bob Bobaloobob
Apr 7 at 21:38
But are you saying that the first sentence is wrong??
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
But are you saying that the first sentence is wrong??
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
Bob, you've posted an opinion but that's not what EL&U is aiming at - we're a Q&A site, not a forum. Please edit your answer to provide an authoritative response that explains why you can elide the "to", preferably citing a grammar source to support your argument. You might also touch on why a writer/speaker might consciously use "to" multiple times, i.e. what difference or impression does it make.
– Chappo
2 days ago
Bob, you've posted an opinion but that's not what EL&U is aiming at - we're a Q&A site, not a forum. Please edit your answer to provide an authoritative response that explains why you can elide the "to", preferably citing a grammar source to support your argument. You might also touch on why a writer/speaker might consciously use "to" multiple times, i.e. what difference or impression does it make.
– Chappo
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f492994%2fis-it-necessary-to-use-to-multiple-times-in-this-context%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
It's a question of style. Plus in some cases (not this one) the seemingly-redundant "to" usage can help to disambiguate a complex sentence.
– Hot Licks
2 days ago
(Consider if the comma-separated clauses might seem to parallel "the leader's ability" rather than "influence others".)
– Hot Licks
2 days ago