2

I have seen the usage of both versions:

I am doing this to get more attention and to seek for opportunities.

I am doing this to get more attention and seek for opportunities.

Which one is correct? Or is it merely different styles?

Thanks in advance!

  • 1
    Both options are fine. If the second part is an afterthought, you would probably repeat to (and possibly add a comma before the conjunction). Otherwise, most people probably prefer the shorter version. – Cerberus_Reinstate_Monica Apr 11 '15 at 17:03
2

They are both okay. You can conjoin any two phrases of the same type to get another phrase of that same type. The structure is

I am doing this [[to [get more attention]] and [to [seek for opportunities]]].

where "and" connects two to-infinitives and gives you a to-infinitive that goes with "doing this". But the two lower verb phrases could also be connected:

I am doing this [to [[get more attention] and [seek for opportunities]]].

giving a verb phrase in construction with the "to".

1

Simpler:

I am doing this to get more attention and seek opportunities.

An American's Guide To Doing Business In China: ... - Page 113

Mike Saxon - 2006 - Many rural people, especially the young, go to a city to make money and seek opportunities for advancement.

Also consider at Google Books (not vanilla Google):

"and seek opportunities to" About 11,800 results

"and seek for opportunities to" About 61 results

Enough said.

_ Now, at the British National Corpus:

seek opportunities 6 solutions

seek for opportunities 0

look for opportunities 7 solutions

  • Though irrelevant to the question, should it be seek or seek for? Thanks! – Thomas Hsieh Apr 11 '15 at 20:44
  • 1
    Neither option seems quite idiomatic in British English. To "seek attention" is a common phrase, and you can describe somebody as "attention-seeking" or "an attention-seeker". But "getting more attention and seeking [for] something else" sounds a bit strange. I think search for opportunities" or "look for opportunities" would be more idiomatic. – alephzero Apr 11 '15 at 22:04
  • 1
    @ alephzero Updated stats at the BNC. Mind want to have a look. Pretty much the same numbers. However "[for] something else" is a good point. – Marius Hancu Apr 11 '15 at 22:31
  • @alephzero Thanks for adding to the answer! Do your statement only hold for British English? I have been learning/using American English. Your help is much appreciated! – Thomas Hsieh Apr 12 '15 at 6:00
  • 1
    No, only the references to BNC at the end are British. – Marius Hancu Apr 12 '15 at 6:12

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.