try
try
(OP)
I believe that after "try", the only word that correctly follows should be "to", not "and". Unless of course you want to say "try and try and try" etc. Sooner or later must be said "to".
Since "and" is a conjunction, it should join something.
To say "try and" is silly talk and incorrect. I know, it is common, but still not correct.
jimbo
Since "and" is a conjunction, it should join something.
To say "try and" is silly talk and incorrect. I know, it is common, but still not correct.
jimbo
Buy a dictionary, keep it nearby and USE it. Webster's New World Dictionary of American English is recommended, and Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.





RE: try
"Try it now."
"Try without complaining so much."
"Try again, you really didn't make a good effort the first time."
"Try harder, you can do it."
RE: try
Hg
RE: try
"Try (to do) it now."
"Try (to do it) without complaining so much."
"Try (to do it) again, you really didn't make a good effort the first time."
"Try (to do it) harder, you can."
Arguing against consensus is like trying to fart louder than thunder.
RE: try
"Try and" isn't really *missing* something. For some reason "and" is in the place we expect "to". "Try and fix it" doesn't mean "try to do it" in conjunction with "fix it". It really means "try to fix it", with some slightly different connotation that I can't quite put my finger on.
A web search reminds me of another similar construction: "Be sure and take the grocery list with you."
Apparently "try and" has been around for as long as "try to". Go figure.
Oh, wow. More web search brings up Thread1010-91349! Y'all have short memories.
What's kinda funny is how many writing and grammar sites out there include the "try and" construction when they're discussing some other matter of correctness.
Hg
RE: try
"Try one of these strawberries, they're delicious."
"Try shaking it, that fixed it last time."
RE: try
Two commands maybe? first try then actually do it?
RE: try
I re-read my last post and was abhorred by that sentence construction.
This group is getting too soft! Someone should have torn into me for that one.
RE: try
RE: try
Hg
RE: try
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: try
RE: try
Hg
RE: try
RE: try
RE: try
Among the definitions for "see" : To find out; ascertain .
To substitute those meanings in the example I gave: Attempt (to do it), and find out (if you succeed or fail).
As opposed to: Attempt (to do it), to find out (if you succeed or fail).
It's certainly a subtle distinction, but I think a clear one. In the latter sentence the emphasis is clearly on recognizing the results of the attempt , (as in a controlled experiment). The former sentence is a directive to attempt to achieve the desired results, and once the attempt has been made, to then note the results.
RE: try
RE: try
"Do it" means do it. It is the imperative; it is also a command.
"Try and do it," if understood literally, ends up being two commands, one of which cannot guarantee the outcome of the other, whereas the other commands it, regardless of any other factors.
"Try and do it" (or other "try and" combinations) is nothing more than another mis-construction of a sentence or phrase created by the ignorant who intend to mean "try to do it."
Things that don't follow standard English grammar are propagated like flies by the ignorant. They become popular with the ignorant, and then the ignorant try to "educate" the rest of us, arguing that since everyone does it or says it, then it must be so. Like rnd2 says: "Arguing against consensus is like trying to fart louder than thunder." Nevertheless, that won't keep me from applying correct English grammar when I produce something written.
English isn't the easiest language out there, partly because of its propensity to collect stuff from every other language out there. But the basic standards of usage are easily available in any bookstore or library, and have been established for a long time. Ignorance is no excuse for laziness.
RE: try
I don't have the kind of issues with spoken language that I have with written language. Spoken language is often "off the cuff" and I don't expect perfect grammar to be applied during speech. Mine often isn't. A speech given from a written text, however, should be prepared with a closer eye to proper grammar. On the other hand, during the delivery of the speech, it is not uncommon for the speaker to vary the text, if it seems appropriate to do so, given the conditions and the audience. TV personalities who constantly are reading from a prepared script should present better grammar in the body of their texts, but this is dictated by those who write the scripts. I don't believe that news anchors write their own scripts, and they often don't have the opportunity to review the material before it's time to go on the air.
(In my area, there is a local radio show host who reads - I think he reads it - the news on the half-hour, and he garbles it so badly every day that I have come to turn up the volume so that while I drive to work, I can clearly hear him mangle it thoroughly. He's particularly good at speaking several sentences that are unintelligible in context to the story, then stopping and starting the paragraph again, reading something entirely different, that is, what was evidently in front of him the whole time. During this babbling, I forget, and I think he does, what he is trying to tell the radio world. As a result of listening to him, I often don't know what the real news is, but my somewhat perverse nature derives much pleasure from his unique presentation, so I've never called or written to the radio station to complain.) (I know he is able to read, since following the news, he identifies several upcoming pieces of music without missing a syllable.)
A point about the OED: Those who are interested in language and its variety should not rely on the Oxford English Dictionary as a usage standard. The intention of its existence is to record the broadest variety of English words and documentation of their earliest written or printed use. It does not pretend to be a manual of grammar. It is a valuable resource for what it is, and I use it frequently. But I don't use it as to determine standards of English usage, since that is not its purpose.
RE: try
Yes, "try and" is nonstandard, in the most formal sense. No, it isn't a marker of complete moronhood. Yes, I'd correct it if I found it in a piece of writing I was proofreading. And no, I wouldn't typically expect to find it in formal writing, but yet I've caught it in the New York Times. It's a very persistent form.
Hg