To blank and to blank, or to blank and blank?
March 3, 2013 10:03 AM Subscribe
Is it more appropriate grammatically to say "I will commit myself to posting with all my heart and to answering questions very well" or "I will commit myself to posting with all my heart and answering questions very well," with the difference being the "to" before the gerund. I am writing something important and want to make sure everything is absolutely correct.
I don't know how to google this. In my real sentence I am working on, it goes something like I would commit myself to gerund + elaboration about that gerund AND gerund + elaboration. So "would commit" has two predicates connected by "and." Should it be "to gerund and to gerund" or "to gerund and gerund?" If I think about it in very simple terms, like "to be or not to be" or "to have and to hold," then the second "to" seems necessary. But is that a rule? I have a lot of elaboration in my actual sentence and I don't know how much that matters. I know I am beyond a doubt beanplating. Thanks for any help!
I don't know how to google this. In my real sentence I am working on, it goes something like I would commit myself to gerund + elaboration about that gerund AND gerund + elaboration. So "would commit" has two predicates connected by "and." Should it be "to gerund and to gerund" or "to gerund and gerund?" If I think about it in very simple terms, like "to be or not to be" or "to have and to hold," then the second "to" seems necessary. But is that a rule? I have a lot of elaboration in my actual sentence and I don't know how much that matters. I know I am beyond a doubt beanplating. Thanks for any help!
Best answer: IANAE, but I write a LOT (patent applications and documents talking about patent applications). I run into your situation frequently, and my approach is, if the first gerund and associated phrase is "short enough" and has a similar "A is to B as C is to D" relationship, I'll leave out the second "to." If the phrase is long or the relationship is dissimilar, I'll put in the second "to."
The other thing I do is read it over and over and over, trying to gauge how easily it can be misinterpreted or misunderstood.
Finally, there is often a rhythmic reason to add it or leave it out: pay attention to the beats of the sentence and pick the way that scans.
Finally, there is often a rhythmic reason to add it or to leave it out: pay attention to the beats of the sentence and pick the way that scans.
See what I did there?
posted by spacewrench at 10:12 AM on March 3, 2013 [2 favorites]
The other thing I do is read it over and over and over, trying to gauge how easily it can be misinterpreted or misunderstood.
Finally, there is often a rhythmic reason to add it or leave it out: pay attention to the beats of the sentence and pick the way that scans.
Finally, there is often a rhythmic reason to add it or to leave it out: pay attention to the beats of the sentence and pick the way that scans.
See what I did there?
posted by spacewrench at 10:12 AM on March 3, 2013 [2 favorites]
Your example has an extra complication, which is that phrase "with all my heart" - it looks to me like that modifies "commit" rather than "posting" (it's natural to say "I commit with all my heart to do x" but weird to say "I am posting with all my heart").
Does the actual sentence you're working on also contain that kind of clause?
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:13 AM on March 3, 2013 [2 favorites]
Does the actual sentence you're working on also contain that kind of clause?
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:13 AM on March 3, 2013 [2 favorites]
Best answer: I think it's a style choice that depends on the tone of what you're writing. If it's a grant proposal for a big foundation, the first option is more formal and probably strikes the right tone. If it's an email to someone who is interested in funding your blog, the latter will sound more conversational.
posted by Sara C. at 10:18 AM on March 3, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Sara C. at 10:18 AM on March 3, 2013 [1 favorite]
Best answer: In English the second preposition is optional, so it's really up to you. I understand including it because it seems to give a certain parallelism to the sentence - but it also sort of sounds French to me (you would have to repeat the preposition in French, where this kind of gerund is expressed in an infinitive, anyway).
My vote is to leave it out as the sentence is short enough to not be confusing.
posted by gohabsgo at 10:19 AM on March 3, 2013
My vote is to leave it out as the sentence is short enough to not be confusing.
posted by gohabsgo at 10:19 AM on March 3, 2013
Best answer: If you want to Google style guides on this the term you want is "parallel structure." In this case the second "to" is optional and I would go with what sounds best to your ear. I like the second "to" here because you have quite long phrases in each part, so reasserting the basic structure seems helpful. If it were "I will commit myself to posting and to answering on AskMe" then the second "to" would seem less useful.
posted by yoink at 10:41 AM on March 3, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by yoink at 10:41 AM on March 3, 2013 [2 favorites]
As far as the actual grammar of English, both "to X and to Y" and "to X and Y" are acceptable.
With longer and more complex sentences, euphony suggests an approach like spacewrench's.
But in reality, if you're writing a cover letter or another piece of job-related correspondence and you find yourself writing a heart-rending sentence like that, it may be a good idea to rethink your approach. Promises of wholehearted passion aren't usually very convincing.
posted by Nomyte at 10:55 AM on March 3, 2013
With longer and more complex sentences, euphony suggests an approach like spacewrench's.
But in reality, if you're writing a cover letter or another piece of job-related correspondence and you find yourself writing a heart-rending sentence like that, it may be a good idea to rethink your approach. Promises of wholehearted passion aren't usually very convincing.
posted by Nomyte at 10:55 AM on March 3, 2013
Both are formally correct, but I find in practice that using "to" in both places is almost always both clearer and more euphonious.
posted by escabeche at 11:00 AM on March 3, 2013
posted by escabeche at 11:00 AM on March 3, 2013
To expand on what I said above-
The example you give in the post contains this weird ambiguity about what the first modifier is modifying. If your actual sentence doesn't have the ambiguity, then everyone else is right that it's purely optional/stylistic choice... but let me explain what I mean by the ambiguity.
There are three ways the modifiers could shake out in your "verb to [ing word][modifier clause] and [ing word][modifier clause]" sentence:
Type A
Both clauses modify the verb before 'to'.
(That is, the modifier describes how I'm committing, not how I'm swimming.)
I would commit myself to swimming for the rest of my life.
I would commit myself to swimming by signing this contract and to running by a solemn pledge. (I think the second "to" is mandatory here)
vs.
Type B
Both clauses modify the 'ing' word.
(That is, the modifier describes how I am doing the action of swimming)
I would commit myself to swimming lazily.
I would commit myself to swimming lazily and drinking umbrella drinks.
I would commit myself to swimming lazily, and to fighting for other people's right to do the same.
The above are all fine; what is a problem is if you mix them. That's why your example above is giving me a little ootchy feeling - it's ambiguous whether it is mixing the two.
*Type C
Mixed! One clause modifies 'commit', the other doesn't.
(This is bad, I think totally impermissible, regardless of whether you include the second "to" - both of the below are bad.)
I would commit myself to swimming by signing this contract and to running fast.
I would commit myself to swimming by signing this contract and running fast.
So, if your sentence is ambiguous as to whether it's a Type C sentence, the reader has a "something is wrong" feeling that they're tottering between permissible and impermissible parsings. That may be giving rise to your feeling of uncertainty about whether the sentence is ok.
posted by LobsterMitten at 12:29 PM on March 3, 2013
The example you give in the post contains this weird ambiguity about what the first modifier is modifying. If your actual sentence doesn't have the ambiguity, then everyone else is right that it's purely optional/stylistic choice... but let me explain what I mean by the ambiguity.
There are three ways the modifiers could shake out in your "verb to [ing word][modifier clause] and [ing word][modifier clause]" sentence:
Type A
Both clauses modify the verb before 'to'.
(That is, the modifier describes how I'm committing, not how I'm swimming.)
I would commit myself to swimming for the rest of my life.
I would commit myself to swimming by signing this contract and to running by a solemn pledge. (I think the second "to" is mandatory here)
vs.
Type B
Both clauses modify the 'ing' word.
(That is, the modifier describes how I am doing the action of swimming)
I would commit myself to swimming lazily.
I would commit myself to swimming lazily and drinking umbrella drinks.
I would commit myself to swimming lazily, and to fighting for other people's right to do the same.
The above are all fine; what is a problem is if you mix them. That's why your example above is giving me a little ootchy feeling - it's ambiguous whether it is mixing the two.
*Type C
Mixed! One clause modifies 'commit', the other doesn't.
(This is bad, I think totally impermissible, regardless of whether you include the second "to" - both of the below are bad.)
I would commit myself to swimming by signing this contract and to running fast.
I would commit myself to swimming by signing this contract and running fast.
So, if your sentence is ambiguous as to whether it's a Type C sentence, the reader has a "something is wrong" feeling that they're tottering between permissible and impermissible parsings. That may be giving rise to your feeling of uncertainty about whether the sentence is ok.
posted by LobsterMitten at 12:29 PM on March 3, 2013
I think the real sticking point is that it's not a good sentence. (I'm sure it's better in a context, but in addition to the "what does 'with all my heart' refer to, the posting or committing?" issue, both the "will commit" gives one pause, as does the "very well." There are better ways to answer questions than "very well," and it's hard to believe when people tell you they will commit. Why aren't they committed now?) So LobsterMitten's point is a good one, in that it's nearly a Type C.
So let's look again: "I will commit myself to posting with all my heart and to answering questions very well."
When you get stuck on a sentence like this—getting that "feeling of uncertainty"—it is time to break it up or do something else radical to the sentence.
All that being said, the double "to" in this sentence isn't what's problematic, and it is acceptable either way; it's just slightly more harmonious and formal to use the double-to.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 1:40 PM on March 3, 2013
So let's look again: "I will commit myself to posting with all my heart and to answering questions very well."
When you get stuck on a sentence like this—getting that "feeling of uncertainty"—it is time to break it up or do something else radical to the sentence.
All that being said, the double "to" in this sentence isn't what's problematic, and it is acceptable either way; it's just slightly more harmonious and formal to use the double-to.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 1:40 PM on March 3, 2013
The first is better for clarity and ease of reading. The second style might imply that the second commitment listed is an addendum to the first commitment, rather than an independant promise. The second style is also a little unwieldy in my opinion.
posted by windykites at 5:59 PM on March 3, 2013
posted by windykites at 5:59 PM on March 3, 2013
With all my heart, I will commit myself to posting and to answering questions very well.
That's what I'd do.
posted by aryma at 10:16 PM on March 3, 2013
That's what I'd do.
posted by aryma at 10:16 PM on March 3, 2013
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by These Birds of a Feather at 10:06 AM on March 3, 2013