His words should perhaps be rephrased to say that where here is a conflict between personal interests and duty as a trustee then the duty is not to take advantage of that conflict and to consider only the interests of the trust.

I have question on the two infinitives connected with ‘and’, to take advantage and to consider.

First, when serises of infinitives are connected with ‘and’, can ‘to’ be omitted from the second infinitive after ‘and’?

Second, if the first infinitive is negative, like ‘not to take advantage’, the second one ‘to consider’ shares ‘not’ to mean negative or it needs another ‘not’ to make it negative, considering ‘and’ as parallel connector?

Thank you very much.

Can somebody answer to my question, please?

First, when series of infinitives are connected with ‘and’, can ‘to’ be omitted from the second infinitive after ‘and’?

Yes (especially where the verbs are closely related), provided the meaning is clear.  Where the first infinitive is negative and the second affirmative, as in this case, you need to keep the second ‘to’ for clarity.

Second, if the first infinitive is negative, like ‘not to take advantage’, the second one ‘to consider’ shares ‘not’ to mean negative or it needs another ‘not’ to make it negative, considering ‘and’ as parallel connector?

Again, you need to make the meaning clear.  Where both verbs are negative, you can either:

(a) omit both the ‘not’ and the ‘to’ from the second, but only if the two verbs are close together (e.g. “he must learn not to scream and shout”), or

(b) include both the ‘not’ and the ‘to’ in the second (e.g. “it is important not to waste too much time on preparation, and not to worry about small mistakes”).

If the second verb is affirmative, include the ‘to’ but not the ‘not’; and if you want extra clarity, insert a comma before the ‘and’.

Good suggestion, ACB, although….

To be or not be: That was not the question.

Sorry ACB, but someone who thinks she knows more than you disagrees with you.
I told her what you said and I got the following response.
If you don’t mind, could you check out the following quote to see if it sounds like a writing of a native English speaker?

Q; When two infinitives are connected with ‘and’, can ‘to’ be omitted from the second infinitive after ‘and’?

A: Yes (especially where the verbs are closely related), provided the meaning is clear.  Where the first infinitive is negative and the second affirmative, as in this case, you need to keep the second ‘to’ for clarity.

You tell him this, too:

To begin with, no one can assume this as “the first infinitive is negative and the second affirmative.”

The second ‘to” can also be kept to link it to the predicative that the first infinitive comes under.

Otherwise, the second one can be mistakenly understood as the verb

directly connected to the subject.

  Q:  If the first infinitive is negative, like ‘not to take advantage’, the second one ‘to consider’ shares ‘not’ to mean negative or it needs another ‘not’ to make it negative, considering ‘and’ as parallel connector?

A; Again, you need to make the meaning clear.  Where both verbs are negative, you can either:

(a) omit both the ‘not’ and the ‘to’ from the second, but only if the two verbs are close together (e.g. “he must learn not to scream and shout”), or

This is exactly what I myself based on when I took the both infinitives to be in parallel negative. And I may add, when it comes to this common usage, it doesn’t matter whether or not you keep two infinitve verbs “close together”. You just can’t apply the same rule differently according to their distance.

In other words, you just can’t say “only if the two verbs are close together,” do you “omit both the ‘not’ and the ‘to’ from the second.” It has nothing to do with the distance and you can omit any time if you want to however farther they may be apart. At the same time, when it comes to this kind of conventional usage, it’s nothing more than a personal decision a writer considers to further clarify intention for his/her reader. In short, it’s not even a rule etched in stone but commonly accepted usage, which means it differs with each situation and writer.

(b) include both the ‘not’ and the ‘to’ in the second (e.g. “it is important not to waste too much time on preparation, and not to worry about small mistakes”).

Now, this is obviously a more objective usage and thus I can agree 100%. You have the 2nd infinitve set off by a comma, so you must take both “not” and “to.” Otherwise, with the comma and without “not”, it’s to be mistaken for an affirmative. If it weren’t for the comma, you can, of course, go either “...and worry about small mistakes” or “...and to worry about small mistakes” to mean both in negative.

Know that the “to” omission is not a must but simply just a matter of personal choice/decision of writer.

It just happens to be more common to leave it off.

So, in essence, the person is suggesting that “he must learn not to scream and shout” could be construed to mean “he must learn not to scream” and “he must learn to shout”?

That’s a pretty big stretch, if you ask me. There’s more to sentences than grammar. They also should make sense.

His words should perhaps be rephrased to say that where here is a conflict between personal interests and duty as a trustee then the duty is not to take advantage of that conflict and to consider only the interests of the trust.

khenry’s correspondent apparently thinks that both the bolded infinitives are negative.  I disagree.  Surely the sentence is saying that the trustee should not advance his/her personal interests and should instead consider only his/her duty as a trustee.  I don’t see how the sentence can be read any other way.  Certainly a comma before the ‘and’ would have made things clearer, but I don’t consider it mandatory (and lawyers are notorious for omitting commas).  The second ‘to’ is necessary, however.

What do you think, saparris?

His words should perhaps be rephrased to say that where there is a conflict between personal interests and duty as a trustee then the duty is not to take advantage of that conflict and to consider only the interests of the trust.

(I have changed here to there in the example. I think there must have been a typo.)

ACB, I agree completely that the second infinitive must express the affirmative. The sentence is contradictory otherwise. Adding a few commas and changing the and to but in the revision below helps, but not much. The sentence is wordy and cumbersome.

His words should perhaps be rephrased to say that, where there is a conflict between personal interests and duty as a trustee, then the duty is not to take advantage of that conflict, but to consider only the interests of the trust.