0

Is the repetition of 'can' a use of bad grammar?

"[...] certain files can be reduced in size and can still retain all crucial information [...]"

Should it simply be ""[...] certain files can be reduced in size and still retain all crucial information [...]"?

Thank you for your help.

Improve this question
2
  • 5
    Either is fine in standard English usage. Your version is simply more concise (which is good).
    – Mark Hubbard
    Jan 14, 2017 at 15:16
  • 1
    The repetition of "can" is fine grammatically. It could be considered inelegant writing depending on the situation. It could also be considered more precise in situations such as legal documents or technical specifications where the objective is not elegance, but avoiding any hint of ambiguity. Personally I find the simpler sentence unambiguous.
    – John Satta
    Jan 14, 2017 at 15:17

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

It's certainly not ungrammatical.

certain files can be reduced in size and can still retain all crucial information

Removing the second "can" could make the sentence slightly ambiguous. Consider the following sentence:

Cats can be a source of great comfort and can sit on your lap.

The comfort and lap sitting are not connected.

Cats can be a source of great comfort and sit on your lap.

The comfort and lap sitting are probably connected although it's ambiguous. It could mean either:

Cats can [be a source of great comfort and sit on your lap].

or

Cats can [be a source of great comfort] and [sit on your lap].

In your particular context (file compression) the two go together (reduction in size and retaining information), so there is little room for ambiguity.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

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