Earlier this week, I posed a question on Twitter.
Anyone got a view on ‘try to’ vs ‘try and’? As in “I’ll try and/to read that later today”. I know ‘to’ is correct, but ‘and’ feels so good.
— Cathy Relf (@caffyrelf) May 14, 2012
I love Twitter, and being connected with a community of editing professionals bigger than I could ever hope to meet in real life is a real honour. But it can be frustrating at times, basically because we’re all such pedantic bastards. I’d hoped to discuss whether ‘try and’ was a regional expression, and whether it was used for a slightly different meaning than ‘try to’. But even though I’d acknowledged in the initial question that the ‘to’ form was the correct one, the conversation got stuck on that point.
‘Try and’ is wrong, I was told. Wrong, wrong, wrong: simple. You can see the conversation, and my growing exasperation, here.
Except that language isn’t simple. You can have formal, standard or style-guide compliant styles, and you can have colloquial, slang or pidgin variations, but language is rarely wrong. Unless you’re misunderstood by almost everyone, almost all of the time. Then, perhaps, you’re doing it wrong.
Also, to tell someone that the way they speak is ‘wrong’ can be a little, erm, insensitive. Though we mostly conform to similar rules when writing, our spoken language differs wildly and reflects our culture, background, family, geography and education. To use myself as an example, here are just three things that I observe in formal writing but not in speech: fewer and less; who and whom; try to and try and.
Perhaps if I were meeting the queen, I’d make an exception. But the rest of the time: no, because how I speak is a reflection of who I am, where I’m from and how, and by whom, I was brought up. I’m sure this is the same for most people – speech and identity are tightly tied, and if you criticise one you criticise the other.
My mother (from sarf London) has a painful memory of meeting my father’s parents (from deepest Kent) and having her pronunciation of ‘bowl’ (‘bawl’) corrected (‘bewl’). Someone once suggested I might improve my career prospects if I observed ‘whom’ in speech. This is scummy, classist bollocks, I’m afraid, and I send a big WRONG to anyone who indulges in it. Whether you’re an editor, a sub-editor, a teacher, a lecturer or a fricking rocket scientist, remember: unless invited, you never have the right to criticise someone’s style of speaking.
‘Try to’ and ‘try and’
Anyway, back to ‘try to’ and ‘try and’. I’m going to have another bash here, and please feel free to join in below if you’re interested.
Firstly, let’s be so, so, SO clear that no-one can misinterpret. If it’s grammatically correct and formal you’re after, ‘try to’ is the one for you. But ‘try and’ has a lot going for it. It’s easier to say (at least in my southern drawl), and has a friendlier sound. And if there’s no problem with “go and get ready” or “come and see me”, why the objection to ‘try and’?
Secondly, although the two are broadly used to mean the same thing, there is sometimes a subtle difference. For example, “I’ll try and read that later” suggests that I may not get around to reading it, but that if I do, I’m pretty confident I’ll be able to. “I’ll try to read that later” could mean that I’ll struggle with the actual reading. In the Facebook screenshot below, the points by Pablo and Terry, in particular, match my own interpretation. And while Terry’s a southerner, Pablo’s an exotic Leeds breed. So I guess it’s not just a Bognor-and-surrounds thing.
It’s not, as some people argue, ambiguous. “I’ll try and read that later” is just as clear as “I’ll try to read that later”. On Twitter, I was told that the ‘and’ suggested a second action must also be taking place, which made the expression misleading. But you’d have to wilfully misread it to get confused. Or would you? If you would genuinely be confused by “I’ll try and read that later”, please do leave a comment and explain why. In the Facebook screenshot, Michael gives the example “I hope to obtain a copy. I’ll try and read it later.” – but, for me at least, in the absence of a pause/comma after the ‘try’, I would hear/read it as the equivalent of ‘try to’.
Even if the expression itself can be ambiguous (and I am doubtful of that), that’s no reason to brand it as ‘wrong’. Pretty much all words and combinations thereof can be open to misinterpretation if used unthinkingly. A large part of being a good communicator, in speech or writing, is using your judgement to limit that risk.
Rant nearly over now, I promise. But here’s a kick-arse link, courtesy of Stan Carey, to the Merriam Webster dictionary. Its entry on ‘try and’ quotes Roy Copperud on attempts to separate it from ‘try to’: “This proves nothing but the lengths to which the wrongheaded will go to make nonexistent points.” Ahh.
Any thoughts?
Well said. The two phrases sometimes differ in meaning, as you point out, but where they are synonymous the main difference is one of register, I think. So “try and”, when it’s used in books by Dickens, Twain et al., tends to appear in dialogue. “Try to” is the safe option for formal and elevated styles, but “try and” is perfectly idiomatic and has been for a very long time.
Comment by Stan — May 18, 2012 @ 10:20 am |
I think the distinction in meaning holds.
I think you can criticize another’s speech if you know they’ll take it well, and you have a suitable sense of perspective about the importance of the issue (i.e. not especially).
So, outright saying a regional pronunciation is wrong is cool if you know the person and it’s all friendly. A friend of mine used to mock my pronunciation of ‘southern’ (suvven), which was great as it was all in fun, and it does sound weird when you think about it.
It’s also okay in many cases to point something out if someone is outright mispronouncing something that isn’t part of their cultural heritage. For myself, I like it when someone points out that I’m saying something incorrectly. I don’t want to go around saying epy-tome or hyper-bowl or Albert Cam-mus.
I suppose the main thing is being tactful with this, as with most controversial things. Like you say, speech is reflective of our identities and to criticize it can be rather like criticizing our politics or religious beliefs. I know someone who is forever mocking the way I speak (he’s got an inverted snobbery about ‘posh people’) and it’s very trying. It should be approached with caution.
Comment by Jacob Funnell — May 18, 2012 @ 10:36 am |
Writers and sub-editors should use language deliberately rather than by accident. “Try and”, “Try to” and even “Try elephant” are all valid if there is a reason for choosing one instead of another. Economist readers, Sun readers and Daily Elephant readers each have their own expectations of the language used in their publications. Writers and sub should try and/to meet those expectations.
I imagine it would only be a problem when using harshly bad grammar outside a quotation. People say things like “I could of been killed” but I would change copy that said ‘he claimed that he could of been killed’ to ‘he claimed that he could have been killed’.
For some reason, “try and” doesn’t fall into this bracket. Although it is a bit colloquial, it does not come across as particularly naughty.
Comment by Alistair Dabbs — May 18, 2012 @ 12:19 pm |
I wrote about “try and” earlier this week (http://www.copyediting.com/usage-quandaries-part-2-try-and), and I agree that “try and” is idiomatic and appropriate in some contexts. If you’re working in formal text, however, “try to” is a better choice.
Comment by Erin Brenner (@ebrenner) — May 18, 2012 @ 1:45 pm |
Actually, after thinking about it, I’ve come to believe “try and” is normally used by someone talking to someone else. For example please try and read that later rather than I’ll. I’m probably wrong but that’s what I’ve come up with.
Comment by Krissie — May 18, 2012 @ 4:50 pm |
[...] been thinking about this again after reading Cathy Relf’s ‘Rantings of a sub-editor’ blog, in which she debates whether some ways of writing (or speaking) can be described as [...]
Pingback by Do crimes against English really exist? « Crimes against English — May 20, 2012 @ 8:21 pm |
I agree about the distinction between standard and colloquial (and I think that’s relevant to the ‘try and/to’ question – I’m not aware of any regional differences). But I still think that sometimes people can be wrong. Otherwise, we’d both be out of a job.
Comment by Penny Dakin Kiley — May 20, 2012 @ 8:26 pm |
Allegedly (which means “I can’t find a definite source for this claim”) Tolkien used “try and” throughout The Lord of the Rings, his editors changed them all to “try to” and he changed them all back again to “try and”.
And since nobody else has said it yet: “Do or not do. There is no ‘try’.”
Comment by Martyn Cornell — May 21, 2012 @ 11:22 am |
Stan – I am delighted to be in such company.
Jacob – Yes, I agree about hyper-bowl and so on, and also about the tact. I had my pronunciation of ‘glib’ corrected a while back, but only after the ‘corrector’ had rolled about in laughter, got me to repeat the sentence and rolled about in laughter some more. Not cool. (Note to self: I keep meaning to write about the difficulties of having a greater written vocabulary than spoken).
Alistair – I too would make those changes. And I’d probably change ‘try and’, as well, if I was subbing and it was outside a quote.
Erin – Thanks for the link.
Krissie – That’s interesting. I wonder if that’s because ‘try to’ implies a slight lack of confidence in the other person’s ability, whereas ‘try and’ puts the emphasis on whether they’ll have the time or the inclination.
Penny – I agree that you can get formal English wrong, as well as standard grammar, punctuation, spelling or even pronunciation. I meant more that recognised turns of phrase or a styles of communication can’t be wrong in themselves. They can certainly be wrong for the context, medium or circumstances, though, and long may it keep us in chocolate digestives.
Martyn – Hurrah the Tolkien!
Comment by substuff — May 21, 2012 @ 12:42 pm |
Cathy, you tried to explain this matter to your readers. But did you try and explain it? Judging from the comments, I’m not sure you did.
Comment by mijnheer — May 28, 2012 @ 5:08 pm |
Really? Then please explain.
Comment by substuff — May 28, 2012 @ 5:51 pm |
“try to” has a specific and singular feel whereas “try and” seems more general, contingent/diffuse.
“try and” has the feeling that the products of your effort of trying are not 100% causally linked to the trying itself, and other things may get in the way of your trying being successful.
eg. “I’ll try and glue the Ming vase back together”
to just doesn’t sound right; I’m thinking “You’re suggesting that a bit of glue and effort will in fact result in a pristine vase. Yeah right.”
Comment by cumfy — June 8, 2012 @ 11:58 am |
[...] me try and explain [...]
Pingback by Link love: language (43) « Sentence first — June 10, 2012 @ 9:57 pm |
In fact there are 18 instances of “try and” in the text of The Lord of the Rings and 24 instances of “try to”. T. H. Huxley’s tragedy: the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.
Comment by John Cowan — June 11, 2012 @ 2:57 am |
American here (though I don’t subscribe to the “different than” Americanism, which I see that you use). From what I hear on this side of the Atlantic, the two are entirely interchangable and have absolutely no regional distinction, nor any difference in meaning, at all, ever. This leaves me with just the slight discomfort with “try and” pointed out, that it suggests a second action. Non-natives unfamiliar with the idiom might be confused by that.
Comment by kitchenmudge — June 11, 2012 @ 4:13 am |
“Different than” may be an Americanism (or like most Americanisms it might be an old form that survived in North America), but “different to” is definitely a Britishism or maybe a Commonwealthism. Still, I got used to it the fifth time I heard it. It’s easy enough to understand. It’s not wrong; it’s just different. There’s no point in complaining about well-established collocations just because they are unfamiliar to you. “Different from” is the prescribed form on both sides of the Atlantic, so we have that in common..
As for “try and,” this is an example of variety in language. It’s dialectal and informal. The fact that it didn’t become the widespread standard does not automatically mean that is is wrong or illogical. Constituents coordinated with “and” display a range of semantic relations, not just additive. The “try and” construction is sequential or maybe causal. Grammatically, the clauses aren’t as tightly integrated as they are with “try to” but that’s just a matter of point of view. If you assume that “try and” posits two separate events, that just emphasizes the trying leading to the doing. There’s no solid reason for thinking that one has to be correct and the other incorrect.
Comment by Eugene — June 11, 2012 @ 1:02 pm |
I’ve never visited this website before and have hit this discussion because the grammar checker on my computer keeps flagging up ‘try and’ as an error, in circumstances where I don’t think it is. So I thought I would try and/to find out. For me in that context, ‘try and’ sounds more normal. I’m wondering if sensitivity on this and discomfort with ‘try and’ is a difference between UK (me) English and US English. Spell-checkers and grammar checkers are always US based.
I definitely wouldn’t say ‘different than’, and probably not ‘different to’. I’d usually say ‘different from’.
Comment by Dru — June 13, 2012 @ 4:07 pm |
Hi Dru, I think it’s equally unpopular both sides of the pond (you can change your grammar check to UK English, but it’ll probably still flag it up). If you’re writing something formal, ‘try to’ is safer. But if you feel like taking a stand for ‘try and’, I’ll be cheering you!
Comment by substuff — June 13, 2012 @ 4:22 pm |
Gut feeling: “I’ll try and finish this by tomorrow” = “All being well, I’ll finish this by tomorrow”/”I hope to finish this by tomorrow” whereas “I’ll try to finish this by tomorrow” = “I’ll attempt to finish this by tomorrow, but the attempt will require significant effort, and I have real doubts as to whether I’ll succeed”
Both perfectly correct, but with subtly different meanings.
Comment by Steve Rawcliffe — February 4, 2013 @ 10:58 am |