8

Planting a glyphosate-resistant crop commits a farmer to using that herbicide for the season, probably to the exclusion of all other herbicides and other weed-control practices. （TOEFL）

I'm not sure how to read this sentence. Should I read it as 1 or 2:

  1. ... commits... to... to... （"to"s are in coordination/ at the same level.)
  2. using... to the exclusion...
Community
  • 1
ForOU
  • 1,673
  • 6
  • 17
  • 2
    Farmer Bob planted a glyphosate-resistant crop, therefore he must use that herbicide for the season, and probably cannot use any other herbicide. – John Gordon Jun 12 '23 at 19:28

2 Answers2

17

The two tos are unrelated. Any parallel or coordination is illusory.

"To commit someone to something" is an elliptical way of saying "to force someone to commit to something".

If we build our headquarters in Toronto, that commits us to frequent international flights.

The second phrasing is a little more difficult to articulate. Generally, if something is done "to the [nominalization] of X", that means "and had the effect of [verbing] X" or "causing X to experience [nominalization]".

The headquarters was built in New York, to the disappointment of many.

Hence, we could paraphrase your original quote:

If a farmer plants a glysophate-resistant crop, she commits to using that herbicide for the season, probably requiring that she exclude all other herbicides and other weed-control practices.

Luke Sawczak
  • 12,776
  • 31
  • 45
  • ""To commit someone to something" is an elliptical way of saying "to force ..."" I disagree here. Committing inherently means the inability to back out, which inherently implies the "forcing" (when trying to back out) that you've listed as the allegedly full wording. It's all part of the definition of "committing to" – Flater Jun 13 '23 at 03:27
  • i interpret the sentence like it has 2 level, i don't know the words to describe this but based on my understanding and reading your answer it's like cause and effect relation https://i.stack.imgur.com/LOEkN.png – encryptoferia Jun 13 '23 at 08:29
  • @encryptoferia Indeed – Luke Sawczak Jun 13 '23 at 11:45
  • @Flater The choice to commit, however, can be forced or unforced. Once you get on the plane, you're committing to going all the way to its destination — but that doesn't mean you can't back out of getting on the plane. :) – Luke Sawczak Jun 13 '23 at 11:48
  • @LukeSawczak: You're moving the goalposts, that's not part of the presented phrase. The focus is on what happens when you plant a glyphosate-resistant crop; it doesn't talk about making a farmer making the choice whether to plant a glyphosate-resistant crop or not. – Flater Jun 13 '23 at 22:52
  • @Flater I disagree: "planting a glysophate-resistant crop" must mean "the farmer's planting a glysophate-resistant crop". And my point is that this choice requires (forces) the farmer to, further, commit to using a certain herbicide. – Luke Sawczak Jun 14 '23 at 01:31
4

The two instances of "to" are not at the same level. Here "using that herbicide for the season, probably to the exclusion of [other stuff]" is a single verb phrase, and is what the farmer is being committed to.

We could rewrite the sentence so that they were at the same level, with little change in meaning:

Planting a glyphosate-resistant crop commits a farmer to using that herbicide for the season, and probably to excluding all other herbicides and weed-control practices.

Here each "to" goes with "commits" and introduces a separate verb phrase.

Especially Lime
  • 3,107
  • 9
  • 18
  • This answer (especially the quote) looks like a reworded version of the accepted answer. – RonJohn Jun 12 '23 at 14:20
  • 2
    @RonJohn I disagree, especially about the quote the whole point of which is that it still has two instances of "to", unlike anything in the previous answer. But by all means downvote if you think that. – Especially Lime Jun 12 '23 at 14:24