This is a tooltip in an application:
Identifies the site name to which the GL code belongs to.
Can I say that it is incorrect to use "to" twice here and we should remove 1 of them?
Other examples:
Identifies the vendor to which the port speed is associated with.
Provides the vendor to which the milestone is associated with.
(They are both tooltips, too)
The repetitions here are incorrect, aren't they? Please confirm.
Best Answer
Yup - those prepositions are redundant. The short answer is that you're right and should follow oerkelens's advice.
Background in case you're curious:
One of the grammar rules that is drilled into the heads of many native speakers of American English in grade school is along the lines of: "IF YOU END A SENTENCE WITH A PREPOSITION, THE WORLD WILL EXPLODE AND ALL THE KITTENS WILL DIE". Many people learn the "to which" construction as a way to get around that.
But what happens in some cases is that the native speaker comes to sort of understand "to which" as its own relative pronoun, instead of a relative pronoun in a prepositional phrase. In that case, they perceive that their sentence still needs a preposition, so the "with" is tacked on at the end. That makes sense, because if you reorganized the sentence, you'd say "The milestone is associated with the vendor" - so "associated with" just kind of runs together nicely in the brain. It's understandable that the writer would want to tack on a "with" after "associated" since they appear together so frequently in other sentences.
This is the result of one of the longest and hardest-fought prescriptivism vs. descriptivism (PvD) battles in English. In my opinion what happens is this: