SEE IF/WHETHER as embedded Q (Zwicky's suggestion)

[Laurence Horn]

At 11:08 AM -0400 7/25/00, RonButters at AOL.COM wrote:
>In a message dated 7/25/00 12:45:31 AM, rtroike at U.ARIZONA.EDU writes:
>
><< Also, in varieties that can invert auxiliaries in embedded questions, my
>sense is that this is possible (though not being a native speaker I can't
>be sure):
>
>        He asked me to see IF I couldn't pry the lid off.
>
>        He asked me to see COULDN'T I pry the lid off.
> >>
>
>I think that this would have to be "He asked me to see COULD I pry the lid
>off" (no negative); "*He asked me to see COULDN'T I pry the lid off." I'm not
>a native speaker, but I have been recording these constructions for 30 years
>here in North Carolina.

This brings up a related question I had, connected to another of Arnold's
postings.  I wholeheartedly endorse his characterization of the
distribution of "try and" from a few days ago, i.e. that the first verb
must appear in the base (non-inflected) form and the second IS the base
form (as in this example from a novel I'm reading:  "Most of them
[classmates] try and be nice to you [someone who limps from polio]; some of
them make fun of you").  What I was wondering is whether speakers from
dialects in which there is zero-agreement for third person singular (at
least some of the time) can say things like

She try and be quiet.
He try and finish his work.

Anyone know?

larry