1

I've found this during my studies:

I would prefer to die in a car crash rather than to die in my sleep.

Is this correct? Shouldn't it be:

I would prefer to die in a car crash rather than die in my sleep.

I thought you should use bare infinitive after rather than (in this type of sentences). Also, can I shorten the second sentence to:

I would prefer to die in a car crash rather than in my sleep.

...because it's the same verb (die)?

  • 1
    There is no "should" involved; in a parallel construction like this, the to infinitive marker is deletable at will by speaker's choice, depending on how they want it to sound. Rhythm controls a lot of optional deletion choices. – John Lawler Apr 3 '18 at 18:11
1

All 3 sentences make sense and are grammatical. It solely depends on style and effect intended. The repetition of the infinitive phrase 'to die'; for example may have emphasis effects.

I would prefer to die in a car crash rather than to die in my sleep.

There is no reason not to use 2 infinitives in a sentence or that a bare infinitive has to follow an infinitive. It's just a bit formal. Also in this case they are just auxilarily verbs "helping" the lexical (main) verb.

Take for example (found from https://www.ef.co.uk/english-resources/english-grammar/infinitive/):

I decided not to go to London.

(Sometimes, it is just a necessary verb. Without rewording the above, it can't be cut down any more. Another choice could be, I decided not to visit London)

Or as a famous quote from Shakespeare:

To be or not to be

If you wanted to cut down on words, these are fine too:

I would prefer to die in a car crash rather than [to] die in my sleep.

I would prefer to die in a car crash rather than [to] [die] in my sleep.

Both of these examples are verb-phrase ellipsis, particularly in the second one. Verb-phrase ellipsis is commonly used in everyday English; albeit more informal and is used to avoid repetition or other style/aesthetic considerations.

Other examples:

John can play the guitar; Mary can play the guitar, too.

He has done it before, which means he will do it again.

The man who wanted to order the salmon did order the salmon.

However, as you can see even if the above words weren't omitted, the sentences would still be grammatically correct.

  • 1
    Wow! I thought some things are fixed in grammar. In my school book and everywhere on the Internet it says that there's only one option possible. For example: dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/common-verbs/… I can see that I still have a lot to learn though. Thank you for your help :) – Adam Janiszewski Apr 6 '18 at 17:35
  • Hey! In the link you gave it says: When we want to say that we would like to do one thing more than another, we can introduce the second thing with rather than, followed by an infinitive without to: I’d prefer to go skiing this year rather than go on a beach holiday. (go in the latter, being the bare infinitive). Can doesn't mean should. Wish you luck with your studies. ^^ – aesking Apr 6 '18 at 19:27
  • Ha, I guess you're right! :D – Adam Janiszewski Apr 6 '18 at 20:38
0

To be honest, the "to" in the second clause should act more as a preposition and not a link to the infinitive. The gerund goes after all prepositions. Therefore: I would prefer to die in a car crash (rather) than to dying in my sleep. However, this sentence is bad because it´s not parallel-- (... to die... to dying). Hence, I would always make the first clause as the gerund as well: I would prefer dying in a car crash (rather) than to dying in my sleep.

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.