Parallelism

[Kagan]

Hi,

I would like to ask a question about parallelism. To make structures parallel, we try to repeat the same ordering such as (make all structures passive, active or to make all verbs gerund or infinite and also try to repeat the words "with, to, on, in, the at.." ). But in some cases, although the words "with, to, on, in, the at.." can be repeated, they are not. Since GMAC's copyright rules I can't write the question but in OG-Verbal Review q99 explanations they use:

(to do x rather than do y) instead of (to do x rather than to do y)

In the explanations, they wrote that the second "to" is understood and omitted. In what cases, these connecting words "with, to, on, in, the at.." can be understood and do not have to repaeated. I am asking this because the answer was the choice that I eleminated for lacking parallelism :D .

Thank you very much for your interest..

[jwinawer]

Two things to note. First, the "to" is often omitted in parallel infinitives, as in "To cut and run". It is common enough that it is worth noting the specific case of infinities. But it also fits into the broader rule that you can distribute a term in grammar similar to how you distribute a term in math:

2(x+y) = 2x + 2y

and

To (cut and run) = to cut and to run

You just don't normally include the parentheses in sentences. If there are explicit parallelism markers, though, you have to watch out.

"I like BOTH to cut AND to run" is ok.

"I like BOTH to cut AND run" is not ok, because you cannot put the whole structure To (cut and run) inside the "Both".

That is probably confusing! Anyway good luck.