to to or not to to?

English translation: omit needless words (but keep needed words)

08:42 Apr 17, 2008
English language (monolingual) [PRO]
Tech/Engineering - Computers (general)
English term or phrase: to to or not to to?
My question is about repeating the "to" in a sentence where there are two verbs joined by "and" with direct objects - is there a rule about when should we repeat the "to" (always when the direct object is mentioned in the first phrase?) or is it a stylistic choice?

example 1:
The “List management” section allows you to consult information related to your lists and to manage them.

or

The “List management” section allows you to consult information related to your lists and manage them.

example 2:
Select this option to consult information and to email it to a colleague.

or

Select this option to consult information and email it to a colleague.

example 3:
Click this button to update and to save your changes.

or

Click this button to update and save your changes.

Thanks!
veratek
Brazil
Local time: 06:13
Selected answer:omit needless words (but keep needed words)
Explanation:
If the meaning is clear without repeating "to," then keep things simple and don't include it. For example, "Click this button to update and save your changes" is perfect as-is. However, the "to" may come in handy sometimes. It could serve to clarify in your first example, due to the other use of "to" before "lists": "The “List management” section allows you to consult information related to your lists and to manage them," however I would vote for a re-write in this case anyway. Something along the lines of "The "List management" section lets you manage your lists and consult related information."

From "The Elements of Style" (http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk5.html):

**************
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.
**************

As a general rule, I think it is unnecessary to repeat the "to." But there are always cases when it may be needed for clarity.
Selected response from:

Expialidocio (X)
France
Local time: 10:13
Grading comment
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



SUMMARY OF ALL EXPLANATIONS PROVIDED
4 +11Better not to repeat it
Jack Doughty
4 +4omit needless words (but keep needed words)
Expialidocio (X)
4 +1it all depends on how far the second verb is from the word it refers back to
Michael Tovbin


Discussion entries: 1





  

Answers


4 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +11
Better not to repeat it


Explanation:
I don't think the repeated "to" is grammatically wrong, but it is better style not to repeat it, generally speaking.

(However, "To be or not be" would not sound so good as "To be or not to be"!)

Jack Doughty
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:13
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in category: 24

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  simon tanner: yes; the Hamlet quote sounds particularly odd without to because the second verb is negative, just as 'I don't know whether to go or not go' somehow does not sound as good as 'I don't know whether to go or not to go' or 'I don't know whether to go or not'
5 mins
  -> Thank you. Yes, it's not a problem when translated into other languages, of course. "Sein oder nicht sein? Быть или не быть?" etc.

agree  Ken Cox: In relatively short phrases, such as the asker's last example, I wouldn't repeat it (doing so would sound odd and throw the reader off). In long phrases, it could be repeated if necessary to ensure correct understanding. IMO it's a matter of feel.
8 mins
  -> Thank you. Yes, in long strings, I would repeat "to" and also separate the clauses by semi-colons rather than commas.

neutral  Expialidocio (X): Whoops! Your answer was posted while I was researching mine... Mostly agree but think there are times when extra "to's" are called for (see my answer for explanation).
11 mins
  -> Thank you. Yes, I agree too; see my response to Ken.

neutral  Jack Dunwell: I agree entirely with Ken Cox/Cherry Pie
37 mins

agree  MJ Barber: It's purely a stylistic decision, whichever looks better to you.
1 hr
  -> Thank you.

agree  Mehmet Hascan
2 hrs
  -> Thank you.

agree  Elena Aleksandrova
5 hrs
  -> Thank you.

agree  Els Spin
5 hrs
  -> Thank you.

agree  BrettMN
6 hrs
  -> Thank you.

agree  Claire Chapman
6 hrs
  -> Thank you.

agree  NancyLynn
11 hrs
  -> Thank you.

agree  Pham Huu Phuoc
1 day 2 hrs
  -> Thank you.

agree  Mikhail Kropotov
1 day 4 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

14 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +4
omit needless words (but keep needed words)


Explanation:
If the meaning is clear without repeating "to," then keep things simple and don't include it. For example, "Click this button to update and save your changes" is perfect as-is. However, the "to" may come in handy sometimes. It could serve to clarify in your first example, due to the other use of "to" before "lists": "The “List management” section allows you to consult information related to your lists and to manage them," however I would vote for a re-write in this case anyway. Something along the lines of "The "List management" section lets you manage your lists and consult related information."

From "The Elements of Style" (http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk5.html):

**************
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.
**************

As a general rule, I think it is unnecessary to repeat the "to." But there are always cases when it may be needed for clarity.

Expialidocio (X)
France
Local time: 10:13
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 4

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Jack Dunwell: Yes, I think this reflects Ken Cox comment above
28 mins

agree  Tania McConaghy
5 hrs

agree  Claire Chapman
6 hrs

agree  Mikhail Kropotov
1 day 4 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

46 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +1
it all depends on how far the second verb is from the word it refers back to


Explanation:
if it is fairly far (3 or more words apart), I would repeat the particle for the sake of good style, although some of the colleagues seem to disagree. Repeating in this case would help the reader see which words go with which other words. This kind of long separation is characteristic of legal texts which do not lend themselves to easy re-writing.

Where the two infinitives are separated by a single word (and), a repeat is unnecessary.

There is no hard and fast rule here. You have to develop a "feel" for it.

Michael Tovbin
United States
Local time: 04:13
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish, Native in RussianRussian

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Mikhail Kropotov
1 day 3 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)



Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.

KudoZ™ translation help

The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.


See also:
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search