Try to vs Try and

[Jada59]

This one is driving me nuts. I think it should always be "Try to", but I am seeing "Try and" more and more. That just sticks in my craw! What do you think?

 

[MetaBob]

This one is driving me nuts. I think it should always be "Try to", but I am seeing "Try and" more and more. That just sticks in my craw! What do you think?

Context, please.

 

[yukonnights]

I think you are probably overreacting. It is accepted in various ways. Here's a decent article on the question.

https://www.dailywritingtips.com/try-to-vs-try-and/

 

[MetaBob]

Context, please.

I think they can both work:

Try And Love Again (Randy Meisner - 1976)
vs.
"But try to understand" (Magic Man - Ann & Nancy Wilson - 1975)

 

[KeithD]

Theodore Bernstein in The Careful Writer, after acknowledging that "try and" is colloquial and that it can "add a heartening tone," comes down on "When allowance has been made for these exceptional uses--to express essaying coupled with encouragement, determination, or challenge--the careful writer will cling to try to as the proper construction in the overwhelming number of situations." (p. 456)

That said, the needs of characterization voice in either dialogue or narration in fiction can justify use of "try and."

 

[Jada59]

Context, please.

I'm going to try to clean the floor.

I'm going to try and clean the floor.

Try to follow the instructions.

Try and follow the instructions.

Try to eat your vegetables.

Try and eat your vegetables.

 

[Jada59]

I think you are probably overreacting. It is accepted in various ways. Here's a decent article on the question.

https://www.dailywritingtips.com/try-to-vs-try-and/

Thanks!

 

[Handley_Page]

"try to" implies the object of whatever is being attempted
"try and" implies the above followed by another action.

 

[LupusDei]

"Try to ..." is the correct and boring normal.
"Try and ..." is intentional malformation that should be serving a purpose (while possibly retaining plausible denial of not being total grammatical mistake, but I know nothing about English grammar so that's just opinion).

How I read "try and xx" is that it attempts to decouple causal connection between act of trying from achieving the goal. I see it as inherently humourous, or at least a lame attempt at a joke (because people trying hard goal-less are ridiculous). Used in a dialogue it may indicate that the speaker doesn't hold communication target's intelligence in high regard; it can be self. It can be used to mean "don't 'try' just go and do" (because trying implies failure, and speaker doesn't want target to fail for lack of commitment).

My reading may be flawed and for all I know there can be myriad of other causes and/or purposes of using such an intentionally garbled construction, so take this just as musings of an alien looking in.

 

[Jada59]

Thanks guys!

 

[gordo12]

Thanks guys!

No, thank you for bringing it up. I realized I've done it. :caning: <---Jada?

 

[jehoram]

I think it's a matter of ear. "Try to stop me" doesn't have the defiant ring of "Try and stop me."

It's all about the context.

 

[gordo12]

I think it's a matter of ear. "Try to stop me" doesn't have the defiant ring of "Try and stop me."

It's all about the context.

To me it's the opposite. Try to stop me rings as far more defiant.

 

[SimonDoom]

"try to" implies the object of whatever is being attempted
"try and" implies the above followed by another action.

I agree there's a different connotation. It's subtle, but it's there.

 

[KeithD]

When was this written, and how old is Theodore Bernstein? (I really don't know, and don't have/take the time now to look it up)

Isn't language an ever-evolving thing where exceptions may become standard, often starting with the younger generation who make their own rules? I think, writers with certain target groups have to be more flexible than the rules, to cater their readers/followers/... as otherwise they don't get the connection.

1965. It's an authority that American publishers keep in their working library. If you have a newer authority that American publishers keep in their working library and use instead of Bernstein, by all means identify it. This is someone else's baby that advice is being given on.

You can do pretty much whatever you please on a free-use Internet story site, but if someone asks a publishing standard question and I provide a response it will be as if they want to do what is standard in the publishing industry--as if it will be acceptable enough to get paid for--not the lowest common denominator the basic reader will accept or the "my Aunt Hazel believes for no particular reason" response.

 

[KeithD]

"Try to ..." is the correct and boring normal.
"Try and ..." is intentional malformation that should be serving a purpose (while possibly retaining plausible denial of not being total grammatical mistake, but I know nothing about English grammar so that's just opinion).

How I read "try and xx" is that it attempts to decouple causal connection between act of trying from achieving the goal. I see it as inherently humourous, or at least a lame attempt at a joke (because people trying hard goal-less are ridiculous). Used in a dialogue it may indicate that the speaker doesn't hold communication target's intelligence in high regard; it can be self. It can be used to mean "don't 'try' just go and do" (because trying implies failure, and speaker doesn't want target to fail for lack of commitment).

My reading may be flawed and for all I know there can be myriad of other causes and/or purposes of using such an intentionally garbled construction, so take this just as musings of an alien looking in.

I think it's more a regional colloquialism. I don't think many writers contemplate a possible difference before using what sounds right to them because of the environment they were raised in.

 

[SamScribble]

I'm with KeithD's source on this one. 'Try to' should be the careful writer's first choice; but it's perfectly acceptable for one of the careful writer's characters to use 'try and'.

 

[KeithD]

Nope, I'm not going to argue about the fact that a book, written in 1965, by a, then 60 year old Theodore Menline Bernstein, is the most highly regarded Modern Guide to English Usage.

Already I'm happy when I can make myself understood; clearly not always the case.

I don't know why you feel the need to misrepresent what I posted as holding Bernstein's Careful Writer as "the most highly regarded Modern Guide (sic) to English Usage" when I gave it as a guide American publishers keep on their consultation shelves. I didn't indicate it was the only one. However, it is enough, I think, to give a response from publishing authorities to this question. And you give nothing other than your opinion that old people's opinions stink, even when commenting within their trained profession.

If you think that the age of writing authorities is so important (probably the premier authority on English usage consulted by American and British publishers alike, Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage was first published in 1926), you are quite welcome to cite writing guides from high schoolers. So far you haven't cited anything--you haven't even really discussed the issue.

If you have grounded discussion that disputes what I cited, by all means cite it.

A writer's guide in more informal use by writers than publisher guidelines, the American Heritage Book of English Usage, can be quoted on this--and doesn't disagree with Bernstein.

"try and The phrase try and is commonly used as a substitute for try to, as in Could you try and make less noise? A number of grammarians have labeled the construction incorrect. To be sure, the usage is associated with informal style and strikes an inappropriately conversational note in formal writing. Sixty-five percent of the Usage Panel rejects its use in written contexts as present in the sentence Why don't you try and see if you can work the problem out between yourselves?" (p. 139)

If you have some reason other than untrained opinion to think this (and Bernstein) isn't good guidance for the question, by all means cite it. We aren't working with your own decisions for your own writing here. We are working with someone else's baby. The responsibility of response thus really should go beyond untrained opinion that's not citing writing usage authorities. At least the one asking the question should be discerning the credibility of the sourcing on the responses they are getting.

In this case, if this is largely a toss-up regional colloquialism issue as I've suggested it is, since the American Heritage panel associates try and with "informal style," and Literotica authors are working to a great extent with popular fiction and character quirks, I don't see where it's a big issue. I think most writers use whichever one that emerges from their environmental experience; I don't think they agonize over which one is the most appropriate for their context.

 

[MetaBob]

I'm going to try to clean the floor.
I'm going to try and clean the floor.

-> I'm going to try cleaning the floor. [?]

Try to follow the instructions.
Try and follow the instructions.

Try to eat your vegetables.
Try and eat your vegetables.

In all of these examples, the meaning of each alternative seems subtly different. "Try to" describes one action, while "Try and" describes two, with "Try" being one. In your second and third examples, I prefer "Try to", as "Try and" seems a bit dismissive.

 

[KeithD]

It's been suggested that the question of whether it's more properly "try to" or "try and" is a matter of evolving usage. The words "gay," "negro/nigger," and "impact" have been affected by evolving usage over the last hundred years. I think that "come/cum" in a sexual context is in the process of usage evolution now. I don't see where the correctness of "try to" and "try and" relative to each other or even the differentiation between them has been evolving or under serious "meaning/choice change" usage discussion in the last hundred years.

Citations of article and writing guidance indicating it has? More than just personal opinion? It's been under some discussion, certainly, or it wouldn't be covered in English usage manuals--and it is. But what's the documented evidence of any accepted evolution of relative meaning/usage of the two versions in the last hundred years?