English Language & Usage Asked by Vali Jamal on August 6, 2020
In the hot story of today (the U.S. Senate report on “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques”), I noticed the following:
He was subjected to numerous and repeated torture techniques, to include being waterboarded 83 times.
The same construction is there in the report itself. To include? What happened to including?
Having also seen the example given, I decided to look at the pdf given by CNN; as it turns out, they seem to use "to include" throughout where "including" might normally be seen. An example:
In meetings between tlie [sic] Committee Staff and the CIA in the summer of 2013, the CIA was unable to explain tlie [sic] details of the photograph, to include the buckets, solution, and watering can, as well as the waterboard's presence at COBALT.
I can see the ambiguity here where "unable" might affect "to include" (although I think it doesn't) so I'll give another example:
I recall vividly watching the horror of that day, to include the television footage of innocent men and women jumping out of the World Trade Center towers to escape the fire. The images, and the sounds as their bodies hit the pavement far below, will remain with me for the rest of my life.
The phrase "to include" is used 58 times in the pdf of the report according to the search function, though not all represent the kind of usage we are discussing. While it appears to be a subordinate clause fragment of sorts (I may be wrong on the technical labeling), I'm suspicious that it might be an esoteric formality because of its repeated instance in the report.
Answered by Alan Joseph Smith on August 6, 2020
Infinitives and gerunds are sometimes used interchangeably; sometimes it works, and sometimes not. They are not the same.
Saying "You are to include waterboarding" is not the same as saying "You are including waterboarding." Saying "I am swimming with the team" is not the same as saying "I am to swim with the team."
The infinitive should represent an intention or an instruction. The gerund should represent the actual occurrence. Of course we mix them up sometimes and it is usually not an issue. If we look at the sentences before and after, there is generally no ambiguity. That said, the sentence in the example is awkward, and in my opinion it is wrong to use the infinitive.
In this case I believe it is a clumsy attempt at rhetoric. By not "doing", but instead listing "to do," the sentence tries to disengage from the action and make it appear somehow separated from the subject of the torture.
Answered by Steve on August 6, 2020
Piling on to what others have already said, I would argue that the usage here is flat wrong. There is an implied tense mismatch at work ... when you use the infinite form "to include" with a list of items, you are implying future composition of those items, which may or may not come to pass. Since all of these cases reference past events explicitly, such an implication is inherently non-sensical, therefore only the use of the gerund form "including" is acceptable.
I agree with the suspicion expressed in another answer that this was likely an attempt at a rhetorical device to distance the authors of the report from the events described.
Answered by dtmoore1971 on August 6, 2020
I agree wholeheartedly with the other answers here, but I have a few other notes to add (referring to the points below). BTW, I sourced the original PDF file from wikisource and the Senate.
Unfortunately, I have been unable to find the report in HTML format, only as an unwieldy 66MB PDF.
Duplications are denoted by "DD".
There are 16 duplications (with point 19 being the original) of
and "supporting references," to include Background Key Captures and Plots Disrupted.")
so really there are about 45 different uses of to include.
I have listed below the 65 examples of "to include" (the figure in the parentheses is the page number of the PDF - rather than the page number of the sub-document contained within the PDF):
Answered by Greenonline on August 6, 2020
Yes, it was incorrect to say "to include" rather than "including".
This error is almost universal among U.S. military officers. Most of them say "to include" in every single case where they should say "including". Every time. And this has been true for at least the last three decades.
I have no idea how this started, but it is easy to imagine a folk etymology for it. You could imagine a general giving the order "you are to take this and to include these". The recipient of the order is unclear on proper grammar, and so later replies with "I took that, to include those". And somehow the error spread.
I don't know if that is the actual cause of this error. But it is true that the infinitive is appropriate for giving orders, and the military often deals with orders. And it is true that this error is now firmly entrenched in the common speech patterns of that community.
Answered by Retired on August 6, 2020
It is my educated guess that "to include" has crept into government speech, especially military speech, as an artifact of government contracting--the infinitive form is frequently used in work breakdown structures, performance work statements, and other contractual lists of tasks. People used to reading, responding to, and evaluating compliance with and completion of requirements have become inured to that phrase, and erroneously use it when they mean "including."
Answered by Jonatha Caspian on August 6, 2020
As a civilian editor who works for the Army, I see this way more than in that report. My own take on it (based on hearing people say it, almost daily) is that it is meant in the sense of a command. But as an indefinite infinitive, it is far less inclusive than "including," because it leaves open the possibility of might include and might not include. I eradicate it from everything I edit that has it in it and patiently explain to the writer that it's simply wrong. But it's not just the military. It's used throughout government. There are many others: vice when the meaning is versus or as opposed to; careerist when the meaning is someone in a career (really). "The art of the possible" when the meaning is not compromise, but the sky is the limit. The list goes on and on.
Answered by Army Editor on August 6, 2020
I'm no expert by any means, but the following makes sense in my head at least.
The phrase "to include" means to only use, review, or execute the list (or series of things) that come immediately after said phrase.
If you use "including" in the sentence, this would imply using, reviewing, and/or executing the item (or list of items) that came before and after the "including" insert.
Answered by TTG on August 6, 2020
I think it is simple. "To include" is prescriptive and forward-looking. "Including" is descriptive and purposefully disconnected with timing. I agree based on many years experience that "to include" is primarily a military usage based on giving instruction or orders.
Answered by jay on August 6, 2020
Thanks to all for taking care to answer my question. Living in Uganda the 'net is often sporadic and moreover I am never informed of the activity my question(s) could have generated. In answer some people have said "to include" in place of "including" is plain wrong, yet admin has quoted from the Senate report where it has been used scores of times. Myself I am struck by its constant usage by the eminent columnist Philip Giraldi. It jars me, but there, it is there. It is like he wants his usage to pass into general usage. Once again, excuses for asking a question and leaving it there. I am going to go look up all my questions and comments made and do some comments myself.
Search Results
Web results
Trump's sanctions on ICC is because U.S. record in ...www.tehrantimes.com › news › Trump-s-sanctions-on-I... Jun 17, 2020 - TEHRAN - Philip Giraldi, a former CIA intelligence officer, says Donald ... war crimes in Afghanistan, to include killing civilians and prisoners.
Philip Giraldi (@philipgiraldi) | Twittertwitter.com › philipgiraldi The latest Tweets from Philip Giraldi (@philipgiraldi). ... that many would regard as conspiratorial or even violently radical, to include black lives matter and ...
Demise of US Hegemony Hastened by Trump: Ex-CIA Officer ...www.tasnimnews.com › news › 2019/08/28 › demise-o... Aug 28, 2019 - Philip Giraldi is a former counter-terrorism specialist and military ... on political changes, to include a renunciation of nuclear weapons. The US ...
Answered by Vali Jamal on August 6, 2020
Get help from others!
Recent Answers
Recent Questions
© 2024 TransWikia.com. All rights reserved. Sites we Love: PCI Database, UKBizDB, Menu Kuliner, Sharing RPP