Interesting question, Janet! This is a great example of something I'm sure we all encounter daily, yet we often don't give it much explicit thought. I would guess that "try'n" for "try and" is alive and well since it seems like a pretty natural reduction in speech. This morning I heard, "You just try'n catch me". I wouldn't have thought twice about it had I not read your email first.
Is there a difference in meaning here that motivates the choice?
"Try and catch me."
"Try to catch me."
"Try and use it."
"Try to use it."
Or is there some grammaticalization going on?
This would be fun to discuss with my students in our weekly Language Lab. I look forward to others' perspectives on the issue.
John
Austin, TXOn Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Castilleja, Janet <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"Hello
Dave Wilton word origins
“Okay, so one should not try and use it as a style guide or a reference.”
I found this in a review of Eats, Shoots and Leaves.
This usage really bothers me. It’s just like fingernails on a blackboard. It seems to me that one is not going to do two things: ‘try’ and ‘use.’ Rather, one is going to try to do one thing: ‘use.’ This usage is so common that I have to wonder what is going on. Is this going to turn into something like ‘let’s’? Will it soon be ‘try’n,’ like a sort of quasi-semi-modal?
Opinions?
Janet
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/