Do I need a “to” for a second infinitive in a sentence?
7
It was common practice to first test and execute a program's source code by hand before using a computer.
It was common practice to first test and to execute a program's source code by hand before using a computer.
The first version of the sentence is without a second to, the second version includes a second to. Which one is correct?
grammaticality infinitives
edited Dec 19 '12 at 7:08
waiwai933♦
12.2k96085
asked Dec 19 '12 at 1:49
marc wellman
2002212
add a comment |
7
It was common practice to first test and execute a program's source code by hand before using a computer.
It was common practice to first test and to execute a program's source code by hand before using a computer.
The first version of the sentence is without a second to, the second version includes a second to. Which one is correct?
grammaticality infinitives
edited Dec 19 '12 at 7:08
waiwai933♦
12.2k96085
asked Dec 19 '12 at 1:49
marc wellman
2002212
2
First: I don't see this as proofreading--the OP is asking whether the second "to" belongs. This is a specific question, as opposed to the general proofreading question "is this sentence okay?". Second: the answer (in case this question gets closed). The position of the adverb "first" is incompatible with a second "to", since you want it to modify both verbs. You would need to put the "first" after "hand" if you want to put in a second "to". (There's also no reason to do this. It reads better with just one "to". If you had a long verb clause after the first "to", it might not.)
– Peter Shor
Dec 19 '12 at 2:19
@PeterShor Thank you very much for your answer. I also prefer the first version of the sentence (with oneto) .. I am asking because my MS Word is underlining the wordexecutegreen suggesting to useexecutesinstead which doesn't make any sense to me. (my mother tongue is German)
– marc wellman
Dec 19 '12 at 2:19
1
@Marc: the MS Word grammar checker does not understand the grammar of complicated sentences. Ignore it.
– Peter Shor
Dec 19 '12 at 2:20
@PeterShor Ok I see .. thank you again ..
– marc wellman
Dec 19 '12 at 2:21
add a comment |
7
7
7
It was common practice to first test and execute a program's source code by hand before using a computer.
It was common practice to first test and to execute a program's source code by hand before using a computer.
The first version of the sentence is without a second to, the second version includes a second to. Which one is correct?
grammaticality infinitives
edited Dec 19 '12 at 7:08
waiwai933♦
12.2k96085
asked Dec 19 '12 at 1:49
marc wellman
2002212
It was common practice to first test and execute a program's source code by hand before using a computer.
It was common practice to first test and to execute a program's source code by hand before using a computer.
The first version of the sentence is without a second to, the second version includes a second to. Which one is correct?
grammaticality infinitives
grammaticality infinitives
edited Dec 19 '12 at 7:08
waiwai933♦
12.2k96085
asked Dec 19 '12 at 1:49
marc wellman
2002212
edited Dec 19 '12 at 7:08
waiwai933♦
12.2k96085
asked Dec 19 '12 at 1:49
marc wellman
2002212
edited Dec 19 '12 at 7:08
waiwai933♦
12.2k96085
edited Dec 19 '12 at 7:08
waiwai933♦
12.2k96085
edited Dec 19 '12 at 7:08
waiwai933♦
12.2k96085
12.2k96085
asked Dec 19 '12 at 1:49
marc wellman
2002212
asked Dec 19 '12 at 1:49
marc wellman
2002212
asked Dec 19 '12 at 1:49
marc wellman
2002212
2002212
2
First: I don't see this as proofreading--the OP is asking whether the second "to" belongs. This is a specific question, as opposed to the general proofreading question "is this sentence okay?". Second: the answer (in case this question gets closed). The position of the adverb "first" is incompatible with a second "to", since you want it to modify both verbs. You would need to put the "first" after "hand" if you want to put in a second "to". (There's also no reason to do this. It reads better with just one "to". If you had a long verb clause after the first "to", it might not.)
– Peter Shor
Dec 19 '12 at 2:19
@PeterShor Thank you very much for your answer. I also prefer the first version of the sentence (with oneto) .. I am asking because my MS Word is underlining the wordexecutegreen suggesting to useexecutesinstead which doesn't make any sense to me. (my mother tongue is German)
– marc wellman
Dec 19 '12 at 2:19
1
@Marc: the MS Word grammar checker does not understand the grammar of complicated sentences. Ignore it.
– Peter Shor
Dec 19 '12 at 2:20
@PeterShor Ok I see .. thank you again ..
– marc wellman
Dec 19 '12 at 2:21
add a comment |
2
First: I don't see this as proofreading--the OP is asking whether the second "to" belongs. This is a specific question, as opposed to the general proofreading question "is this sentence okay?". Second: the answer (in case this question gets closed). The position of the adverb "first" is incompatible with a second "to", since you want it to modify both verbs. You would need to put the "first" after "hand" if you want to put in a second "to". (There's also no reason to do this. It reads better with just one "to". If you had a long verb clause after the first "to", it might not.)
– Peter Shor
Dec 19 '12 at 2:19
@PeterShor Thank you very much for your answer. I also prefer the first version of the sentence (with oneto) .. I am asking because my MS Word is underlining the wordexecutegreen suggesting to useexecutesinstead which doesn't make any sense to me. (my mother tongue is German)
– marc wellman
Dec 19 '12 at 2:19
1
@Marc: the MS Word grammar checker does not understand the grammar of complicated sentences. Ignore it.
– Peter Shor
Dec 19 '12 at 2:20
@PeterShor Ok I see .. thank you again ..
– marc wellman
Dec 19 '12 at 2:21
2
2
First: I don't see this as proofreading--the OP is asking whether the second "to" belongs. This is a specific question, as opposed to the general proofreading question "is this sentence okay?". Second: the answer (in case this question gets closed). The position of the adverb "first" is incompatible with a second "to", since you want it to modify both verbs. You would need to put the "first" after "hand" if you want to put in a second "to". (There's also no reason to do this. It reads better with just one "to". If you had a long verb clause after the first "to", it might not.)
– Peter Shor
Dec 19 '12 at 2:19
First: I don't see this as proofreading--the OP is asking whether the second "to" belongs. This is a specific question, as opposed to the general proofreading question "is this sentence okay?". Second: the answer (in case this question gets closed). The position of the adverb "first" is incompatible with a second "to", since you want it to modify both verbs. You would need to put the "first" after "hand" if you want to put in a second "to". (There's also no reason to do this. It reads better with just one "to". If you had a long verb clause after the first "to", it might not.)
– Peter Shor
Dec 19 '12 at 2:19
@PeterShor Thank you very much for your answer. I also prefer the first version of the sentence (with one
to) .. I am asking because my MS Word is underlining the word execute green suggesting to use executes instead which doesn't make any sense to me. (my mother tongue is German)– marc wellman
Dec 19 '12 at 2:19
@PeterShor Thank you very much for your answer. I also prefer the first version of the sentence (with one
to) .. I am asking because my MS Word is underlining the word execute green suggesting to use executes instead which doesn't make any sense to me. (my mother tongue is German)– marc wellman
Dec 19 '12 at 2:19
1
1
@Marc: the MS Word grammar checker does not understand the grammar of complicated sentences. Ignore it.
– Peter Shor
Dec 19 '12 at 2:20
@Marc: the MS Word grammar checker does not understand the grammar of complicated sentences. Ignore it.
– Peter Shor
Dec 19 '12 at 2:20
@PeterShor Ok I see .. thank you again ..
– marc wellman
Dec 19 '12 at 2:21
@PeterShor Ok I see .. thank you again ..
– marc wellman
Dec 19 '12 at 2:21
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
8
Normally, you are free to either omit or repeat to in an elliptical, parallel construction like this. However, in this case the word first stands between to and the infinitive, and so you cannot repeat to while omitting first in the second branch. Repeating both to and first, however, sounds a little awkward, perhaps because it is a bit redundant. It is possible, but I recommend leaving out to and first in the second branch.
answered Dec 19 '12 at 2:17
Cerberus
53.9k2119205
+1 First is redundant with before; unless (I'm looking at you, @marcwellman) OP means "first to test and then to execute ... before &c.
– StoneyB
Dec 19 '12 at 2:38
@StoneyB: Gracias! But I don't think first...then would change the meaning of the sentence, given that both would naturally be carried out in the order in which they are written?
– Cerberus
Dec 19 '12 at 2:40
2
Ya got me. I don't know what "executing source code by hand" means, or how you "test" it without "executing" it. It's been a quarter-century since I was a programmer.
– StoneyB
Dec 19 '12 at 2:50
1
@Lynn: You can "dry run" high-level code just as much as machine code. And "source code" has no real implications as to the level of the code. One word in some modern languages might execute more machine code instructions than you could write in a week (back in the day, sigh! :)
– FumbleFingers
Dec 19 '12 at 3:15
2
@marcwellman In that case I still have to ask What's the difference between "test" and "execute"? Isn't the "test" a dry-run "execution"? If that's the case, then I think what you want is something more like It was common practice to test a program's source code by manual execution before running it on a computer. And ifn it wuz me, I'd put the substance of Lynn's comment in dashes between "execution" and before", to demonstrate what a pain in the ass it was and why the invention of assembler and higher-level languages was so important.
– StoneyB
Dec 19 '12 at 13:18
|
show 6 more comments
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
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%2f94751%2fdo-i-need-a-to-for-a-second-infinitive-in-a-sentence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
8
Normally, you are free to either omit or repeat to in an elliptical, parallel construction like this. However, in this case the word first stands between to and the infinitive, and so you cannot repeat to while omitting first in the second branch. Repeating both to and first, however, sounds a little awkward, perhaps because it is a bit redundant. It is possible, but I recommend leaving out to and first in the second branch.
answered Dec 19 '12 at 2:17
Cerberus
53.9k2119205
+1 First is redundant with before; unless (I'm looking at you, @marcwellman) OP means "first to test and then to execute ... before &c.
– StoneyB
Dec 19 '12 at 2:38
@StoneyB: Gracias! But I don't think first...then would change the meaning of the sentence, given that both would naturally be carried out in the order in which they are written?
– Cerberus
Dec 19 '12 at 2:40
2
Ya got me. I don't know what "executing source code by hand" means, or how you "test" it without "executing" it. It's been a quarter-century since I was a programmer.
– StoneyB
Dec 19 '12 at 2:50
1
@Lynn: You can "dry run" high-level code just as much as machine code. And "source code" has no real implications as to the level of the code. One word in some modern languages might execute more machine code instructions than you could write in a week (back in the day, sigh! :)
– FumbleFingers
Dec 19 '12 at 3:15
2
@marcwellman In that case I still have to ask What's the difference between "test" and "execute"? Isn't the "test" a dry-run "execution"? If that's the case, then I think what you want is something more like It was common practice to test a program's source code by manual execution before running it on a computer. And ifn it wuz me, I'd put the substance of Lynn's comment in dashes between "execution" and before", to demonstrate what a pain in the ass it was and why the invention of assembler and higher-level languages was so important.
– StoneyB
Dec 19 '12 at 13:18
|
show 6 more comments
8
Normally, you are free to either omit or repeat to in an elliptical, parallel construction like this. However, in this case the word first stands between to and the infinitive, and so you cannot repeat to while omitting first in the second branch. Repeating both to and first, however, sounds a little awkward, perhaps because it is a bit redundant. It is possible, but I recommend leaving out to and first in the second branch.
answered Dec 19 '12 at 2:17
Cerberus
53.9k2119205
+1 First is redundant with before; unless (I'm looking at you, @marcwellman) OP means "first to test and then to execute ... before &c.
– StoneyB
Dec 19 '12 at 2:38
@StoneyB: Gracias! But I don't think first...then would change the meaning of the sentence, given that both would naturally be carried out in the order in which they are written?
– Cerberus
Dec 19 '12 at 2:40
2
Ya got me. I don't know what "executing source code by hand" means, or how you "test" it without "executing" it. It's been a quarter-century since I was a programmer.
– StoneyB
Dec 19 '12 at 2:50
1
@Lynn: You can "dry run" high-level code just as much as machine code. And "source code" has no real implications as to the level of the code. One word in some modern languages might execute more machine code instructions than you could write in a week (back in the day, sigh! :)
– FumbleFingers
Dec 19 '12 at 3:15
2
@marcwellman In that case I still have to ask What's the difference between "test" and "execute"? Isn't the "test" a dry-run "execution"? If that's the case, then I think what you want is something more like It was common practice to test a program's source code by manual execution before running it on a computer. And ifn it wuz me, I'd put the substance of Lynn's comment in dashes between "execution" and before", to demonstrate what a pain in the ass it was and why the invention of assembler and higher-level languages was so important.
– StoneyB
Dec 19 '12 at 13:18
|
show 6 more comments
8
8
8
Normally, you are free to either omit or repeat to in an elliptical, parallel construction like this. However, in this case the word first stands between to and the infinitive, and so you cannot repeat to while omitting first in the second branch. Repeating both to and first, however, sounds a little awkward, perhaps because it is a bit redundant. It is possible, but I recommend leaving out to and first in the second branch.
answered Dec 19 '12 at 2:17
Cerberus
53.9k2119205
Normally, you are free to either omit or repeat to in an elliptical, parallel construction like this. However, in this case the word first stands between to and the infinitive, and so you cannot repeat to while omitting first in the second branch. Repeating both to and first, however, sounds a little awkward, perhaps because it is a bit redundant. It is possible, but I recommend leaving out to and first in the second branch.
answered Dec 19 '12 at 2:17
Cerberus
53.9k2119205
answered Dec 19 '12 at 2:17
Cerberus
53.9k2119205
answered Dec 19 '12 at 2:17
Cerberus
53.9k2119205
answered Dec 19 '12 at 2:17
Cerberus
53.9k2119205
53.9k2119205
+1 First is redundant with before; unless (I'm looking at you, @marcwellman) OP means "first to test and then to execute ... before &c.
– StoneyB
Dec 19 '12 at 2:38
@StoneyB: Gracias! But I don't think first...then would change the meaning of the sentence, given that both would naturally be carried out in the order in which they are written?
– Cerberus
Dec 19 '12 at 2:40
2
Ya got me. I don't know what "executing source code by hand" means, or how you "test" it without "executing" it. It's been a quarter-century since I was a programmer.
– StoneyB
Dec 19 '12 at 2:50
1
@Lynn: You can "dry run" high-level code just as much as machine code. And "source code" has no real implications as to the level of the code. One word in some modern languages might execute more machine code instructions than you could write in a week (back in the day, sigh! :)
– FumbleFingers
Dec 19 '12 at 3:15
2
@marcwellman In that case I still have to ask What's the difference between "test" and "execute"? Isn't the "test" a dry-run "execution"? If that's the case, then I think what you want is something more like It was common practice to test a program's source code by manual execution before running it on a computer. And ifn it wuz me, I'd put the substance of Lynn's comment in dashes between "execution" and before", to demonstrate what a pain in the ass it was and why the invention of assembler and higher-level languages was so important.
– StoneyB
Dec 19 '12 at 13:18
|
show 6 more comments
+1 First is redundant with before; unless (I'm looking at you, @marcwellman) OP means "first to test and then to execute ... before &c.
– StoneyB
Dec 19 '12 at 2:38
@StoneyB: Gracias! But I don't think first...then would change the meaning of the sentence, given that both would naturally be carried out in the order in which they are written?
– Cerberus
Dec 19 '12 at 2:40
2
Ya got me. I don't know what "executing source code by hand" means, or how you "test" it without "executing" it. It's been a quarter-century since I was a programmer.
– StoneyB
Dec 19 '12 at 2:50
1
@Lynn: You can "dry run" high-level code just as much as machine code. And "source code" has no real implications as to the level of the code. One word in some modern languages might execute more machine code instructions than you could write in a week (back in the day, sigh! :)
– FumbleFingers
Dec 19 '12 at 3:15
2
@marcwellman In that case I still have to ask What's the difference between "test" and "execute"? Isn't the "test" a dry-run "execution"? If that's the case, then I think what you want is something more like It was common practice to test a program's source code by manual execution before running it on a computer. And ifn it wuz me, I'd put the substance of Lynn's comment in dashes between "execution" and before", to demonstrate what a pain in the ass it was and why the invention of assembler and higher-level languages was so important.
– StoneyB
Dec 19 '12 at 13:18
+1 First is redundant with before; unless (I'm looking at you, @marcwellman) OP means "first to test and then to execute ... before &c.
– StoneyB
Dec 19 '12 at 2:38
+1 First is redundant with before; unless (I'm looking at you, @marcwellman) OP means "first to test and then to execute ... before &c.
– StoneyB
Dec 19 '12 at 2:38
@StoneyB: Gracias! But I don't think first...then would change the meaning of the sentence, given that both would naturally be carried out in the order in which they are written?
– Cerberus
Dec 19 '12 at 2:40
@StoneyB: Gracias! But I don't think first...then would change the meaning of the sentence, given that both would naturally be carried out in the order in which they are written?
– Cerberus
Dec 19 '12 at 2:40
2
2
Ya got me. I don't know what "executing source code by hand" means, or how you "test" it without "executing" it. It's been a quarter-century since I was a programmer.
– StoneyB
Dec 19 '12 at 2:50
Ya got me. I don't know what "executing source code by hand" means, or how you "test" it without "executing" it. It's been a quarter-century since I was a programmer.
– StoneyB
Dec 19 '12 at 2:50
1
1
@Lynn: You can "dry run" high-level code just as much as machine code. And "source code" has no real implications as to the level of the code. One word in some modern languages might execute more machine code instructions than you could write in a week (back in the day, sigh! :)
– FumbleFingers
Dec 19 '12 at 3:15
@Lynn: You can "dry run" high-level code just as much as machine code. And "source code" has no real implications as to the level of the code. One word in some modern languages might execute more machine code instructions than you could write in a week (back in the day, sigh! :)
– FumbleFingers
Dec 19 '12 at 3:15
2
2
@marcwellman In that case I still have to ask What's the difference between "test" and "execute"? Isn't the "test" a dry-run "execution"? If that's the case, then I think what you want is something more like It was common practice to test a program's source code by manual execution before running it on a computer. And ifn it wuz me, I'd put the substance of Lynn's comment in dashes between "execution" and before", to demonstrate what a pain in the ass it was and why the invention of assembler and higher-level languages was so important.
– StoneyB
Dec 19 '12 at 13:18
@marcwellman In that case I still have to ask What's the difference between "test" and "execute"? Isn't the "test" a dry-run "execution"? If that's the case, then I think what you want is something more like It was common practice to test a program's source code by manual execution before running it on a computer. And ifn it wuz me, I'd put the substance of Lynn's comment in dashes between "execution" and before", to demonstrate what a pain in the ass it was and why the invention of assembler and higher-level languages was so important.
– StoneyB
Dec 19 '12 at 13:18
|
show 6 more comments
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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
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%2f94751%2fdo-i-need-a-to-for-a-second-infinitive-in-a-sentence%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
2
First: I don't see this as proofreading--the OP is asking whether the second "to" belongs. This is a specific question, as opposed to the general proofreading question "is this sentence okay?". Second: the answer (in case this question gets closed). The position of the adverb "first" is incompatible with a second "to", since you want it to modify both verbs. You would need to put the "first" after "hand" if you want to put in a second "to". (There's also no reason to do this. It reads better with just one "to". If you had a long verb clause after the first "to", it might not.)
– Peter Shor
Dec 19 '12 at 2:19
@PeterShor Thank you very much for your answer. I also prefer the first version of the sentence (with one
to) .. I am asking because my MS Word is underlining the wordexecutegreen suggesting to useexecutesinstead which doesn't make any sense to me. (my mother tongue is German)– marc wellman
Dec 19 '12 at 2:19
1
@Marc: the MS Word grammar checker does not understand the grammar of complicated sentences. Ignore it.
– Peter Shor
Dec 19 '12 at 2:20
@PeterShor Ok I see .. thank you again ..
– marc wellman
Dec 19 '12 at 2:21