NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #23/NN_1992_23.iso/spool/misc/writing/3186

Text File | 1992-10-14 | 1.9 KB | 42 lines

Newsgroups: misc.writing
Path: sparky!uunet!beauty!josh
From: [e-mail] (Joshua_Putnam)
Subject: Re: Usage: To try and find the answer.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:39:11 GMT
Lines: 30

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Anthony E Bible) writes:

>    I recently finished reading Larry McMurtry's _Lonsome Dove_, which I
>enjoyed, but I was distracted by his frequent use of the expression
>"... to try and <verb> ..." instead of "... to try to <verb> ...".  (I've also
>frequently seen this form used in less formal writing including post to this
>group.)  Now, a *lot* of effluent has passed under the bridge since I was a
>young man studying English grammar, so I can not put a label on this form, but
>I'm reasonably sure it is incorrect -- or was at one time.
>[....] does current usage accept, for example, "to try and find" in lieu of
>"to try to find"?

I generally find the "try &" phrasing awkward, but no less
authority than Fowler's _Modern English Usage_ says that,
"It is an idiom that should be not discountenanced, but used
when it comes natural."  According to Fowler, "It is ...
colloquial, if that means specially appropriate to actual
speech; but not if *colloquial* means below the proper
standard of literary dignity.  Though *try to do* can always
be substituted for *t. & do*, the latter has a shade of
meaning that justifies its existence...."

Of course, Fowler came out in 1926, so I'm not sure it
qualifies as "current usage."  It may be old enough to count
as history.
--
 [e-mail]    Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x102
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108
 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.  NextMail OK
Info free; sample $20: Send POSTAL addr: [e-mail]