Suppose I have five books, one of which is a dictionary and one of which is a novel. Then I might say, “I have five books, including a dictionary and a novel.”
All my life I have only ever heard and seen that idea phrased that way. But lately I have seen people write in the form, “I have five books, to include a dictionary and a novel.”
Where did this come from? Is this standard English usage that I somehow never knew of? One of the “to include” writers I’ve encountered is a known Canadian, so perhaps this is a regional variation?
I’m a professional writer and editor, and I’ve never come across it and wouldn’t let it stand in anything that passed though my hands.
It sounds like the work of a non-native speaker of English. Like the way the French, for instance, use an infinitive where we wouldn’t: “It is to laugh.”
But it could be idiomatic in some area of business or region or something.
I think it might be a Canadianism. I’ve run into it once or twice in Canadian writing; sentences like “I must get five books, to include a dictionary and a novel” where “to include” presumably implies “which are to include”.
However, I’m in the same line of work as commasense, and likewise wouldn’t let it through.
This admittedly grating locution is fairly common in U.S. government documents, particularly in Defense Department technical specifications. For example, a specification for a weapons system component might say “The rototend vertilator provides an interface between two widgets, to include a flanistan coupling and a flux capacitor.” In this context “to include” is an abridged form of “which are required to include” or “which shall include” or “which must include”; it’s import is jussive – it is expressing a requirement, which I guess is appropriate for a military spec. Unfortunately many government bureaucrats and defense contractors, out of ignorance, carelessness, or simply a love of jargon, have taken to using the phrase as a synonym for “including,” which it is not.
I guess I agree with the others: to me, “including a dictionary and a novel” is a statement about what actually is included; “to include a dictionary and a novel” is a statement about what is supposed/required to be included.
I have edited an author who repeatedly used the “to include” form in some technical documents and I changed it to “including” every time. English was not her first language, but I was never able to find out her exact background.
I think GawnFishin’ is on target. In most instances where “including” is appropriate, “to include” is a somewhat “off” way of expressing the same concept, and a good editor will change it to “including” as the preferable usage. However, there are a few instances, AFAICT always imposing conditions, where “to include” is acceptable and even preferable, e.g., “Candidates for a B.S. degree with a major in —ology will satisfactorily complete a minimum of eight courses within the department, to include A—, B—, C—, and either D—, E—, or F—, depending on their intended field of concentration.” The use of “to include” here carries a subtle connotation of mandatedness that “including” would not. In cases like the OP’s example, however, “to include” sounds awkward and out of place.
I could see it in a future tense, as in “Each camper shall bring with her five pairs of shorts, to include two pairs of khaki shorts.” Granted, that could be just as well said with “five pairs of shorts, including two pairs of khaki shorts,” but as Polycarp said, it’s more like you will do this.