1

I wrote an article with the following sentence in it, but I find it a bit strange in the part I marked bold:

We would like to incentivize the firms in different levels of the supply chain to reduce to eliminate conflict mineral usage by their rational and economic deliberation, which can potentially be substantially less costly than enforcing a law that imposes stringent requirements on the firms.

I would like to say that the firms will reduce the usage until eventually eliminating the usage all together. But using "to" between two verbs seems confusing. Is this a correct way of saying it? If not, how best should I put it? I know I can replace the "to" with "or", but I think that would lose the sense that the change is gradual and also there is a general direction toward using less.

  • 1
    "to reduce, and eventually eliminate,"? On a different note, something can be cheaper or is potentially cheaper. If you say it can potentially, it gives me the idea you are not very sure. It might, maybe, be a possibility that could potentially happen... that sounds like I shouldn't count on it ;) – oerkelens Jul 13 '14 at 13:48
  • @oerkelens Thank you for the suggestion. I guess I should sound more confident over there. – Fang Jing Jul 13 '14 at 17:26
3

Here are a few ideas:

We would like to incentivize the firms in different levels of the supply chain to reduce—in order to eventually eliminate—conflict mineral usage by their rational and economic deliberation, which can potentially be substantially less costly than enforcing a law that imposes stringent requirements on the firms.

We would like to incentivize the firms in different levels of the supply chain to reduce—and in time to eliminate—conflict mineral usage by their rational and economic deliberation, which can potentially be substantially less costly than enforcing a law that imposes stringent requirements on the firms.

We would like to incentivize the firms in different levels of the supply chain to reduce—with an eye to eliminating—conflict mineral usage by their rational and economic deliberation, which can potentially be substantially less costly than enforcing a law that imposes stringent requirements on the firms.

  • Thank you! Do you know if my original wording is grammatically wrong? I'd appreciate it if some explanations can be given. – Fang Jing Jul 13 '14 at 17:29
  • @FangJing, yes, I would say it was wrong. Certain verbs can be followed by an infinitive. (Examples: I will try to sleep. I would like to taste the cake.) But reduce is not one of them. – Dangph Jul 13 '14 at 22:28

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.