Point of grammar?

[nimthiriel]

Why do people say  "try and"  instead of  "try to"?

I thought  "try to"  made more sense...

Because if you use  "try and", what you're saying is you're going to try, AND you're going to do something.


"I'm going to try AND open the can of beans"

Rather than

"I'm going to try TO open the can of beans".

Comments

[kirby1024.livejournal.com]

It's phonologically more convenient. Vowel to vowel requires less effort than vowel to consonant.

Although, semantically you could think of it as "I'm going to try and I will succeed at what I'm trying"...

[rukubites.livejournal.com]

That is an awesome answer.

I can't see where the "try and" form would ever be appropriate in the written form, but that seems spot on for spoken word. :-)

[taiba.livejournal.com]

YEah, I was writing this because I got tired of seeing it in written form.

One of the problems with something becoming common in speech is that it then transfers to the written word as well :-p

[aeduna.livejournal.com]

Because it can be two seperate things - you can try to open a jar, or you can try and see if reinstalling the driver fixes the problem. The try part in the second isn't applied to the installing the driver, its to see if that fixes the problem.

Then people are lazy and the two blur together :)

[rukubites.livejournal.com]

Note that in your second example, the "try and" is entirely redundant.

[aeduna.livejournal.com]

Sure, but a lot of language is ... I was just looking for a sensible situation where 'try and' made sense. It could be said to be emphasis on the "this may not work" aspect of 'see if'. :)

[kirby1024.livejournal.com]

Alternatively, consider that the trying and the action performed are actually have separate logical values - one can try and not succeed, as much as someone can try and succeed. So, in a sense, one is making an optimistic statement when they say they will try and perform an action.

And I do find that people who use that construction tend to focus on the fact that the action has a chance of failing, which I think gives credence to my reading of the construction.

[taiba.livejournal.com]

Like you said: To try implies the possibility of failure.

So if there is a possibility of failure, it makes no sense to say that they will both attempt and succeed, as success or failure are outcomes of the attempt.

Saying "I will try and turn the handle" is different to "I tried and the handle turned" or "I tried and the handle didn't turn".

So I have no idea what you're talking about :-p

[kirby1024.livejournal.com]

At which point I note that "Language is not logical, nor is it consistent, nor should it necessarily be either". :P

Language contains exceptions after exception because noone ever assesses the entire system at once, and language is an entirely arbitrary construct anyway. "And" by any other phoneme would still be a conjunction, and "And" need not be a conjunction if it's better serves the speaker to be a preposition.

In short, stop being a grammar nazi :P

[taiba.livejournal.com]

"In short, stop being a grammar nazi :P"

NEVAH ;-)

[roccondilrinon.livejournal.com]

"Language is not logical, nor is it consistent, nor should it necessarily be either"

Indeed. Unfortunately, this (and your first post above) diminishes your theory about it being a deliberate choice of expression. It may be for some, but for most it's what you said to begin with about phonological laziness.

This convenience doesn't apply to the written language, and the established correct form is "try to", so unless one is making a deliberate, definite point by writing "try and", one should avoid doing so.

[kirby1024.livejournal.com]

"Unfortunately, this (and your first post above) diminishes your theory about it being a deliberate choice of expression."

Not so much, actually. Language users often justify new constructions after the fact, and while the initial reason is often phonological convenience (not laziness!), new meanings become attached to the new constructions. This happens a lot, and is how a lot of words split in meaning Like, amusingly enough, grammar and glamour. Once the phonological change began occurring, people began to attach different associations to the two pronunications, until they both became words used in completely different contexts.

"This convenience doesn't apply to the written language"

Of course it does. The written language should, wherever possible, reflect the spoken language. That's what it's there for!

And yes, I know that the formal register has it's social uses, and that I'm a big idealist - but even formal register changes as the language does (witness that singular they has now become the preferred nongendered pronoun in the Australian Government Manual of Style). So phooey to you :P

[roccondilrinon.livejournal.com]

//The written language should, wherever possible, reflect the spoken language.//

This has nothing to do with the fact that writing "try and" is no more convenient than writing "try to", which is all I was saying.

PS Would you tell a doctor or a lawyer or a physicist how to do his job? Then don't try it on a linguist. I am fully aware that there's nothing moral about using a standard language. I also appreciate just how useful having a standard language is and I don't appreciate it when relativism and modernism try to tell me that everything I say is mere opinion.

[danielrh.livejournal.com]

Phil, your post appears to have been written by someone unaware of Lee's linguistics background.
Were you trying to suggest that you were more studied in linguistics than he is?

[roccondilrinon.livejournal.com]

I actually wasn't aware that he had that background, and he came across more like someone who'd picked up a book or two or maybe taken a first-year class and taken the lesson on the nonsuperiority of the standard as an excuse to call out "grammar nazis". As I mentioned, I have very little time for the modernist attitude that came across.

Lee, sorry if I took you a little too seriously — I feel rather strongly about these issues, simply because the modernist/relativist "everything-is-only-opinion" attitude is so common among amateurs who want to sound impressive and I think it is thoroughly incorrect. I don't mean to offend you.

[kirby1024.livejournal.com]

"I actually wasn't aware that he had that background, and he came across more like someone who'd picked up a book or two or maybe taken a first-year class and taken the lesson on the nonsuperiority of the standard as an excuse to call out "grammar nazis"."

Nope. Up to Honours so far, working on clearing debts to move up to PhD level. I know of whence I speak.

I mean, let's not pussyfoot around, I do take the lesson on the nonsuperiority of the standard as an excuse to call out grammar nazis, but I do always wait for them to start it first! :P

As for the Subjective/Objective divide... Well, I'm not a pure subjectivist, I'm rather much of a fence-sitter in regards to that battle. I mean, seriously, you did see me in Philosophy, yeah? I don't actually think everything is just opinion, I do think there's a objective fabric to reality, I just think you're nuts if you're expecting to find objective truth in language - you're talking about the science of signs here!

As you may note, I'm just as passionate about language, just on the opposing side to you. I am, in a way, rather seduced by the Egalitarian side, but more importantly I find non-standard forms far more fascinating than standard forms, and thus I tend to stick up for them more often than not. I mean, I'm a online sociolinguist - my favourite things to look at are chatspeaks and Internet Englishes. Of course, it's even more fascinating to see how speakers of both react to each other, but that's what you get, really. So, no offence taken! :)

[taiba.livejournal.com]

You have been seduced by the dark side! Did you at least get a really good cookie? :-p

Phil's starting his honours. Soon, you guys will have equal rank :-p

BOSS FIGHT! (or something)

[kirby1024.livejournal.com]

It was indeed tasty and delicious. But they kept changing the cookie with every bite...

Heh, so, the question is, where's he going with his honours?

[taiba.livejournal.com]

I think he's actually doing philosophy, and then possibly continuing with Ling in a later degree.

Not sure, it's currently far too early to recall exactly :-)

He may just go straight on to philosophy PhD if he does well enough.

We'll see.

[kirby1024.livejournal.com]

Apparently I hit a nerve, and I apologise for doing so (I had intended a slightly jestful tone to my post, but this was apparently lost, I apologise for not making this clearer).

But do note that I am also a linguist, and even if I were not, I think that I'd still have the right to express my views on the nature of language. I did not intend to tell you how to do your job, and my sincerest apologies if my posts gave a contrary impression. I was merely attempting to engage in some lively linguistic debate. It's what I enjoy, lord knows I don't get enough of it these days...