[Ads-l] _try to_ vs. _try and_

Tue Nov 8 18:32:31 UTC 2016

And just to stir yet another item into the mix.

While I think we all agree that, at the very least , there can be (among other
things) a register difference between "try to" and "try and", the register
difference *isn't the same* in USAmerican and British English.  (I think this is
dealt with in detail in the article in the current issue of American Speech, but
I can only access the Abstract.)

This means that the possible approach by constructing minimal pairs, as Larry
does below, becomes seriously problematic.  A case of my idiolect vs. your
idiolect.

The opposite brute force approach is ... unfeasable.  I nipped over to the OED
to see what was what, and while there's no specific entry on "try and/to" (as
far as I could see), if you skip the editorial interventions and treat it as a
database, running "try[Near1]to{ordered}" and "try[NEAR1]and{ordered}", the
results, even leaving aside false positives, stretch to the thousands.  Try and
(or to) analyse that ...

Oddly enough, I think there's at least a possible answer to Wilson's original
question:

    "Was anyone else specifically taught that _try to_ is "correct," whereas
    _try and_ is “incorrect”? It was like, you know, on the final."

With whatever reservations one has about it, turning to Ngram, it looks very
much as if, in actual use, "try to" is winning out over "try and", at least in
written English.

This would suggest to me that when Wilson as a youngun was taught grammar, it
would probably be by presnickety prescriptivists who failed to realise that
their hypercorrect insistence on "try to" over "try and" was .. fallacious.

Times have changed, but it looks as if for once, and I suspect having nothing to
do with the weight of authority, much as it pains me to admit it, those same
teachers were (unknown to themselves) identifying a trend.

So in a hundred years, if Human Beans are still around and speaking English, no
one will anytime anywhere ever say "try and... whatever."

But here and now, in our unlovely present, I fully intend to use either or both
variants as the occasion warrants.

Regardless.

Robin

> 
>     On 08 November 2016 at 16:28 Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU> wrote:
> 
> 
>     > On Nov 8, 2016, at 10:34 AM, Robin Hamilton
>     > <robin.hamilton3 at VIRGINMEDIA.COM> wrote:
>     >
>     > Arnold:
>     >
>     >>
>     >> On 08 November 2016 at 14:19 "Arnold M. Zwicky" <zwicky at STANFORD.EDU>
>     >> wrote:
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>> On Nov 8, 2016, at 5:18 AM, Robin Hamilton
>     >>> <robin.hamilton3 at VIRGINMEDIA.COM> wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>> ... Unfortunately, neither M-W, Burchfield, nor Arnold in his comments
>     >>> below clarify
>     >>> the question as to whether, as well as the obvious register-difference
>     >>> between
>     >>> the two phrasings, "try and" and "try to", there is *also* a semantic
>     >>> distinction.
>     >>
>     >>> ... I use both, but I'm not certain as to whether the choice
>     >>> between them on my part is based on only socially contextual
>     >>> considerations, or
>     >>> whether there's a semantic nuance involved on occasion.
>     >>
>     >> i had hoped to jhave said this clearly: there is no difference in
>     >> truth-functional semantics, but there certainly is a difference in
>     >> nuance
>     >> (classifiable as implicature or connotation), having to do with
>     >> closeness vs.
>     >> looseness of association between trying and Ving.
> 
> 
>     Perhaps, if your intuitions are the same as mine, the pragmatic difference
> is brought out in the contrast between:
> 
>     (1) a. I'm going to try to solve the problem and I'm pretty sure I'll
> succeed.
>     b. I'm going to try and solve the problem and I'm pretty sure I'll
> succeed.
>     (2) a. I'm going to try and solve the problem even though I'm pretty sure
> I won't succeed.
>     b. #I'm going to try and solve the problem even though I'm pretty sure I
> won't succeed.
> 
>     Maybe (2b) isn't quite as odd as a # suggests, but it seems less likely
> than (1b) in this context.
> 
>     LH
>     >> (this nuance will often not
>     >> be obvious or will be unimportant in context; that's the way of
>     >> nuances).
>     >>
>     >
>     > To recap slightly, Merriam-Webster dismisses the idea of significant
>     > difference
>     > virtually out of hand; Burchfield, with a set of references to fuller
>     > discussions, ends up coming down on the side of "no discernable
>     > difference" too,
>     > but at least addresses the issue. I'm unconvinced.
>     >
>     > At least, I'm not convinced that the issue is as closed as M-W and (to a
>     > lesser
>     > degree) Burchfield suggest. And you yourself in the above paragraph seem
>     > to
>     > agree that there is a difference, albeit not in "truth-functional
>     > semantics".
>     > Why that (I'm not being picky here, probably simple ignorance on my
>     > part)
>     > rather than simply "semantics"?
>     >
>     > Re-reading what you say above, I think we may, to a degree, be arguing
>     > over
>     > terminology here -- semantic difference vs.significant difference vs.
>     > nuance vs
>     > ... whatever. Also whether we approach the issue in terms of lexis or
>     > syntax.
>     > Or the point where the two interact.
>     >
>     >>
>     >> think of it this way: _try to_ V tends to treat trying and Ving as part
>     >> of
>     >> a single act, while _try and_ V allows them to be seen as two separate
>     >> but
>     >> crucially related acts, with Ving as the intended consequence of
>     >> trying.
>     >>
>     >
>     > If I'm not misunderstanding you, what you're saying is that "trying to"
>     > and
>     > "trying and" exhibit syntactical difference, but this doesn't constitute
>     > a
>     > semantic difference? I'd guess that there isn't room for argument that
>     > "trying
>     > to" can take part in certain constructions that "trying and" can't, and
>     > vice
>     > versa. I'd go on to say that this in itself might constitute proof of a
>     > semantic difference (although there might be other evidence for
>     > difference as
>     > well), while you'd draw the opposite conclusion.
>     >
>     > Or am I completely misunderstanding the argument at this point?
>     >
>     >
>     > Robin
>     >
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> arnold
>     >>
>     >> ------------------------------------------------------------
>     >> The American Dialect Society -
>     >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.americandialect.org&d=CwICaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=wFp3X4Mu39hB2bf13gtz0ZpW1TsSxPIWYiZRsMFFaLQ&m=wm1GHh2je51VYx1GM1sp9-YsSzBRSXyeXNORkPU4ILk&s=phds7R2R37PEcnsGWGlOURvKtNO7D846NY98BzklVfw&e=
>     >>
>     >
>     > ------------------------------------------------------------
>     > The American Dialect Society -
>     > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.americandialect.org&d=CwICaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=wFp3X4Mu39hB2bf13gtz0ZpW1TsSxPIWYiZRsMFFaLQ&m=wm1GHh2je51VYx1GM1sp9-YsSzBRSXyeXNORkPU4ILk&s=phds7R2R37PEcnsGWGlOURvKtNO7D846NY98BzklVfw&e=
> 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------
>     The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org