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;
}







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?










share|improve this question


















  • 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


















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?










share|improve this question


















  • 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














0












0








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?










share|improve this question














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






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










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














  • 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










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















1














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.






share|improve this answer
























  • 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



















0














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:





  1. 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.






share|improve this answer










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












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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















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









1














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.






share|improve this answer
























  • 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
















1














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.






share|improve this answer
























  • 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














1












1








1







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.






share|improve this answer













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.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










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



















  • 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













0














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:





  1. 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.






share|improve this answer










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
















0














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:





  1. 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.






share|improve this answer










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














0












0








0







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:





  1. 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.






share|improve this answer










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:





  1. 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.







share|improve this answer










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.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








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



















  • 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


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







Popular posts from this blog

Category:香港粉麵

List *all* the tuples!

Channel [V]