Many times I've seen the phrase, "He will try and stop them from..." or various other sentence usages. However, isn't it more correct to write, "He will try to stop them from..." ?
"Try and" vs. "Try to"
- Thread starter slb
- Start date
No, it is not more correct to use "try to" (instead of "try and").
This topic comes up, now and then, on writer forums. First, on my dictionary on my iMac, the New Oxford American Dictionary, from the entry TRY:
.
Also, in my usage dictionary, Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage, on page 750-751, their entry "try and" has almost two full pages of stuff.
Actually, the construction using "try and" might be older than the construction using "try to".
In my usage dictionary, Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage, on page 750-751, where their entry "try and" has almost two full pages of stuff, has this tidbit in it:
It be a Friday night . . . ( <--- Ooooo, look! A subjunctive!?!? )
In my usage dictionary, Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage, on page 750-751, where their entry "try and" has almost two full pages of stuff, has this tidbit in it:
.
It be a Friday night . . . ( <--- Ooooo, look! A subjunctive!?!?
)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 4,151
- Reaction score
- 954
- Location
- Manchester, UK
- Website
- www.teriegarrison.com
No, it is not more correct to use "try to" (instead of "try and").
No one said it's more correct to use 'try and'. Chase said that while it's more correct to use 'try to', the usage 'try and' is in common usage.
There are many reasons to use informal colloquialisms. You simply ought not apply prescriptive grammar to fiction and even some forms of narrative nonfiction.
Many people say 'try and', therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to have characters and even narrators say 'try and'. It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Using colloquialisms such as 'try and' is a great way to distinguish characters from one another, say, a poor farm lad and a scholarly wizard dicing at the pub.
If you insist on always using exactly correct prescriptive grammar, it makes varying your characters' speech patterns much more difficult.
It is important to know which version is grammatically correct and which is acceptable idiom. But writers are free to break the rules when there's a good reason and/or for effect.
.
Chase, can you provide a source to back up your assertion?
. . . Ooooo, a grammar war?! . . .
What ya got?
What had happened was that my 1st post and Chase's first post in this thread had sorta "cross-posted"--that is, my 1st post was in response to the OP's original post in this thread (at which time I hadn't yet read Chase's 1st post).
(Both "try and" and "try to" are standard English. And both are grammatically correct.)
Edited-to-add: Terie, did you mean to say "No one said it's more correct to use 'try to'," yes?
Last edited:
New Oxford American Dictionary:
try |trī|
USAGE In practice, there is little discernible difference in meaning between try to plus infinitive ( : we should try to help them) and try and plus infinitive ( : we should try and help them), but there is a difference in formality, with try to being regarded as more formal than try and. The construction try and is grammatically odd, however, in that it cannot be inflected for tense—that is, sentences like : she tried and fix it or : they are trying and renew their visa are not acceptable, while their equivalents : she tried to fix it or : they are trying to renew their visa undoubtedly are. For this reason, try and is best regarded as a fixed idiom used only in its infinitive and imperative form. See also usage at and.
"The troll did its best to try to goad the poster into a war" is standard diction for narrative using the phrase in question, although "The troll did its best to goad the poster" is smoother.
However, when writing from the troll's POV, "I done my best to try and goad the guy" characterizes the troll excellently.
Darn, and I was just about to do some rewrite on my manuscript.
Now, Chase, what in that excerpt backs up your assertion of:
Interestingly, I had already posted that usage note in my 1st post in this thread. *shrugs*
Now, as to me being a "troll", well, I'm ugly, but to call me a troll? On a Friday night? If I wasn't so egotistical and big-headed, your words might have hurt me and put me into a shell, and I might have had to pay hundreds of bucks for therapy.
Now, Chase, what in that excerpt backs up your assertion of:
Could you point that out to me (us)?
Interestingly, I had already posted that usage note in my 1st post in this thread. *shrugs*
Now, as to me being a "troll", well, I'm ugly, but to call me a troll? On a Friday night? If I wasn't so egotistical and big-headed, your words might have hurt me and put me into a shell, and I might have had to pay hundreds of bucks for therapy.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 4,151
- Reaction score
- 954
- Location
- Manchester, UK
- Website
- www.teriegarrison.com
F.E., I don't know what your problem is, but upstream, you made the following statement:
No, it is not more correct to use "try to" (instead of "try and").
with the underlined emphasis of the word 'not' being yours, as if you were contradicting something someone had said. That's what the sentence structure you chose to use means.
I pointed out that no one upstream had said it was more correct to use 'try and'. The only comment using the phrase 'more correct' at that point was Chase's, where he said:
(bolding mine)
Here's what I'd suggest: go back and read the thread in order. And stop being confrontational for no apparent reason.
I would say 'try to'.
I definitely wouldn't say 'try to stop him from...' The 'from' is completely unnecessary.
I definitely wouldn't say 'try to stop him from...' The 'from' is completely unnecessary.
this reminds me of the use of this/that
He said he was going out.
or
He said that he was going out.
He said he was going out.
or
He said that he was going out.
Actually, the construction using "try and" might be older than the construction using "try to".
Thank you for posting that. Clears up a lot of confusion.
Not necessarily.
Jack will try to stop her from carrying out her threat.
To leave out "from" would sound odd there.
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,485
- Reaction score
- 165
- Location
- Cleveland, Ohio, USA
- Website
- www.bkedits.com
To me, it would sound vaguely British. I don't know why. No one where I live would say that, but it's perfectly correct as written. "I tried to stop his jumping from the ledge..." Correct. Just not what anyone says. In Ohio, USA, in 2012.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 4,151
- Reaction score
- 954
- Location
- Manchester, UK
- Website
- www.teriegarrison.com
Leaving spelling and jargon aside, pretty much the biggest difference I've noticed between American English and British English is preposition usage. There are a LOT of differences in which and when prepositions are used!
Excluding 'from' is very standard in British English usage; including it is very standard in American English usage.
"Try and" is all too common, but it's just flat wrong. Always. It's colloquial speech spoken by those who simply do not understand grammar, or the meaning of the word "and".
No matter how many use it, writers don't get a free pass. As an editor, I've also found that writers who use "try and" also screw up in all sorts of other areas. It's one of the red flags that tell me reading another page of the manuscript is probably not a good idea.
No matter how many use it, writers don't get a free pass. As an editor, I've also found that writers who use "try and" also screw up in all sorts of other areas. It's one of the red flags that tell me reading another page of the manuscript is probably not a good idea.
Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage said:
The editor responsible for that entry doesn't seem to understand early Modern or Middle English syntax.
Most of the examples in the MED use two separate verbs, as in the modern "try and stop me." Try is one verb, stop is another. They are separate actions; the person most both try and stop. Trying alone isn't enough; try to stop me merely references the attempt, but not the success.
Regarding the Dryden example, the quotation is both selective, and misunderstood:
To repair his Strength he tries
Hardning his Limbs with painful Exercise,
To is functioning as the infinitive marker of the verb to repair; it isn't "inverted."
Try and is a colloquialism in the U.S.; it is also a regional marker in Northern dialects in the UK.
I don't think it's as binary as some would have it, indeed, I think it is possible that there are three separate constructions.
Note that if you are writing fiction, there's reason to write dialog and narrative using the real language of real people, in all it's dreadful glory.
Presumably all your reading and writing as such is entirely that of people using formal English; how nice for you!
Notice too that English changes, like any living language.
I'm still suffering over compose and comprise, but I know quite well that lots of words merged, changed meanings, and were entirely dropped between even a limited era like 1400 and 1500.
Such is the nature of language.
I'm still suffering over compose and comprise, but I know quite well that lots of words merged, changed meanings, and were entirely dropped between even a limited era like 1400 and 1500.
Such is the nature of language.
Last week, the AW member whose screen identity names a dark bird (cough) agreed with JAR and was immediately unfriended by half of Facebook, so I’ll distance myself by quoting Diana Hacker’s A Pocket Style Manual used currently at a local college:
try and Try and is nonstandard for try to. I will try to (not try and) be better about writing to you.
And my tattered copy of B.A. Phythian’s A Concise Dictionary of Correct English:
try and Try and followed by a verb (try and open it) is colloquial. The correct expression is try to, but try and is permitted if the intention is to encourage . . . try and you will solve it.
This I also cautiously agree with about a try and red flag--cautiously, because I haven’t corrected essays from a classroom for over ten years and these days I edit for hire less and less.
Of course Lisa's point about dialog and first-person narrative are absolutely correct. We write in our character's diction. Period. It's no holds are barred.
This is opposite with two writers in beta experiences not here at AW. One first-person main character was an ex-English teacher. The other third-person, omniscient, character was a successful ghost writer.
I think if we choose to educated our protagonists above the colloquial masses, then we’d better get our ducks in a row.
Instead, both characters narrated with several try and red flags. Never mind applying commas with a shotgun, soon came sprinklings of "had" and "that" in every other sentence, as if the two words magically elevated diction.
Incredibly, both writers had sentences where reason, why, and because were together, as in "the reason why he was sad was because of the fact that she had not called." Of course with all the had uses came an occasional "had swam" and "had drank."
I guess I'm agreeing I should of quit at try and.
Thanks for the clarification...I think. lol. Actually you all (or is it correct to say y'all) helped me confirm what I already thought. I can understand how 'try and' has become common. It's how sometimes 'lazy' language evolves. Not saying those who use it are stupid, it's just how people have taken to speaking. I will admit that when I started editing stories, 'try and' did grate a little because the sentence is indicating something to be done, or tried. I never understood where the 'and' came into play.
Anyway, thanks again everyone. Hope this helps others, too.
Anyway, thanks again everyone. Hope this helps others, too.
.
Terie,
First of all, I've already said that I wrote my 1st post in response to the OP's original post, and that I hadn't even read Chase's 1st post yet at that time. Chase's and my first posts had "cross posted".
Here's the OP's first post:
(bolding mine)
Hopefully you'll notice that the OP had used the phrase "more correct" in his 1st post. That was the phrase that I was responding to. (And again, I repeat, I hadn't yet read Chase's 1st post; and so, I couldn't have been responding to his post.)
And my question to you was an honest one, as I didn't think that sentence of yours made sense to me as it was worded (and I still don't).
Now I won't suggest to you that you read the whole thread, like you did to me. But perhaps you could try to read the very first post in this thread, and do it carefully, please. Thank you.
Last edited: