positiveamal wrote:I understand that we can drop a common word (to) while writing a parallel structure. One can have 'to' before each element of parallel structure or can have only one 'to' in a parallel sentence applicable to all elements.
However This rule does not apply when we have a correlative conjunction in a sentence. For better understanding please look in to following example:
Andre's goal is not only to maximize profits but also increase brand awareness. WRONG
Andre's goal is not only to maximize profits but also to increase brand awareness. RIGHT
Andre's goal is to not only maximize profits but also increase brand awareness. SPLITTING INFINITIVE (MOSTLY WRONG)
However option 'E' is best option available here, I still have a question regarding omitting the word 'to'
Hi Amal, thank you for bringing up a very interesting question. The debate on "splitting infinitive" started in 19th century and that is still going on!
The background of the debate just to relate to the discussion:
Many of the English grammar rules are derived from Latin where the infinitive "to + verb" is treated as single word. Hence, conservative grammarians established a rule in late 19th century, a few years after the start of the wide usage of splitting infinitive. However, in 20th century, there was denials of that rule saying that "to + verb" is not one word in English and many acclaimed writers of 20th century used splitting infinitives in their literature. There are some grammarians (e.g., Toni Boyle and K.D. Sullivan, authors of The Gremlins of Grammar) who are proponents for splitting infinitive and some grammarians are opponents of splitting infinitive. In many cases, constructions with splitting infinitive are awkward or wrong and hence should be avoided. Though there are cases where splitting infinitive makes better sense, many people advise to refrain from the use of splitting infinitive in formal writing so as to reduce the possibility of ambiguity.
For the examples you have shown, I fully agree with your analysis on the first two cases. For the third case, IMHO, your sentence "Andre's goal is to not only maximize profits but also increase brand awareness" may not be discarded altogether as the preposition "to" is common for both the verbs and thus making both infinitive. However, I stand by the point that the best reconstruction of the third sentence would be your second example as that form adheres to the conservative rule and the sentence does not leave any ambiguity.
Considering GMAC's preference for the conservative path, I feel it is better to avoid split infinitives whenever possible. When there are two options with only difference of splitting infinitive, I would pick the option without splitting infinitive. But, when there are more serious problems (e.g., grammatical mistake or change of meaning) in the other choices, I would pick the option with splitting infinitive as that falls under clarity issue which is less serious problem.
For our particular case, best construction would be to have "to" before both the verbs. Please consider option E as the best option from the given choices (though it is not the best possible sentence in the world). Option E is best choice here because all other choices have more critical grammatical mistakes.
In summary, I am not denying the problem you have raised (as splitting infinitive is not accepted widely) and, at the same time, I am not discarding the use of splitting infinitive totally. As I see, use of splitting infinitive is contextual and we have to judge the correctness of the sentence based on the situation.
