<p>i like to sleep and to drink</p>
<p>or i like to sleep and drink</p>
<p>this question has been haunting me for years</p>
<p>I like to sleep and drink.</p>
<p>I like to sleep and drink.</p>
<p>Parallelism.</p>
<p>Both are grammatically OK, because it's just a case of leaving out words that are understood or superfluous. All of these have basically the same structure:</p>
<p>I like to sleep and I like to drink.
I like to sleep and like to drink.
I like to sleep and to drink.
I like to sleep and drink.</p>
<p>Unless there's some odd stylistic reason to go with one of the other forms, the most concise one is preferable; it's perfectly normal (but not required) to omit the to in an infinitive after common conjunctions. Good thing, too: "to sleep, perchance dream" just doesn't have the same ring :)</p>
<p>"I like to sleep and I like to drink."
Isnt it "I like to sleep, and I like to drink"?</p>
<p>Yes it is firewolf</p>
<p>Each fragment can stand alone so you would need the comma</p>
<p>I think the comma, too, is an either/or choice--basically a matter of house style. Old-fashioned style guides and your 90-year old English teacher would probably demand a comma between two independent clauses no matter how short. But here's what the University of Chicago style guide, a pretty reliable guide to modern usage, says:</p>
<p>"this particular punctuation rule is so commonly ignored -- particularly in short sentences -- that it is in danger of disappearing"</p>