# Try TO do or try AND do? [ verb + and ]



## Agnès E.

Bonjour!

I wondered what form is the best:

I *try to* do this properly
I *try and* do this properly

Some American friends of mine vote for "try to".
What do you think?

Moderator note: this very long thread is a merged version of five separate threads on the topic, including the latest by difficult cuss.


----------



## elroy

Agnes E. said:
			
		

> Bonjour!
> 
> I wondered what form is the best:
> 
> I *try to* do this properly
> I *try and* do this properly
> 
> Some American friends of mine vote for "try to".
> What do you think?


 
"Try to."

"Try and" is colloquial but unacceptable in formal, standard English.  If you think about it, it doesn't even make sense! 

Same goes for "be sure to/and."


----------



## Agnès E.

Thank you for your help, Elroy!


----------



## Kelly B

"Try and" is probably too informal for writing, but it is very common here in speech. I don't think it is that nonsensical; _to try_ can stand alone, so it can reasonably be used in a structure of parallel verbs:
I can't read that.
Try! (make an effort!)
Try and read it! (Make an effort! Read it!)

I DO think "Try TO read it" is preferred; I just don't think "try and" is completely illogical.


----------



## cuchuflete

At the risk of being uncloaked as a total curmudgeon, Elroy is absolutely correct, and my dear colleague Kelly is doing stretching exercises on behalf of users of the common but illiterate corruption of the infinitive.


Try to comprehend, and comprehend that try to + verb is valid.  Try and + verb is slovenly, though common.  In fact common is a good adjective to describe the usage, in at least two of its meanings.

Back to taking curmudgeon pills,
Cuchu

PS-try and smile, as this is meant to be mirthful.  Or just try. Or just smile.



			
				Kelly B said:
			
		

> "Try and" is probably too informal for writing, but it is very common here in speech. I don't think it is that nonsensical; _to try_ can stand alone, so it can reasonably be used in a structure of parallel verbs:
> I can't read that.
> Try! (make an effort!)
> Try and read it! (Make an effort! Read it!)
> 
> I DO think "Try TO read it" is preferred; I just don't think "try and" is completely illogical.


----------



## elroy

Kelly B said:
			
		

> "Try and" is probably too informal for writing, but it is very common here in speech. I don't think it is that nonsensical; _to try_ can stand alone, so it can reasonably be used in a structure of parallel verbs:
> I can't read that.
> Try! (make an effort!)
> Try and read it! (Make an effort! Read it!)
> 
> I DO think "Try TO read it" is preferred; I just don't think "try and" is completely illogical.


 
But when you say "try and read it" you're not *really* trying to saying "make and effort *and* read it."  That is, you are not requesting two separate actions (1. make an effort [temporarily ignoring the fact that the rest of that request is only implied anyway], and 2. read it).  You are not commanding the person to read it.  You are only asking him to "try to read it."  One request, one verb.



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> At the risk of being uncloaked as a total curmudgeon, Elroy is absolutely correct, and my dear colleague Kelly is doing stretching exercises on behalf of users of the common but illiterate corruption of the infinitive.
> 
> 
> Try to comprehend, and comprehend that try to + verb is valid. Try and + verb is slovenly, though common. In fact common is a good adjective to describe the usage, in at least two of its meanings.
> 
> Back to taking curmudgeon pills,
> Cuchu
> 
> PS-try and smile, as this is meant to be mirthful. Or just try. Or just smile.


 
I won't even try and top that superb description!


----------



## foxfirebrand

Try and understand-- idiom is not always susceptible to rational parsing. Doesn't make it "slovenly." Of course it's an AE/BE thing to some degree, so maybe we should try and get along, even if it seems standards are going woefully unupheld.

I know a fairly well-spoken guy who uses the verbal "take and" where most of us would say, or even simply _imply_ "do." "Then I took and threw it over my shoulder and walked off with it." 

Don't know which is more "common," that or-- "*up* and." As in, "his grammar was so slovenly I just about up and died."

I'm gonna make sure and keep my ears peeled for other examples.


----------



## elroy

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> Try and understand-- idiom is not always susceptible to rational parsing. Doesn't make it "slovenly." Of course it's an AE/BE thing to some degree, so maybe we should try and get along, even if it seems standards are going woefully unupheld.
> 
> I know a fairly well-spoken guy who uses the verbal "take and" where most of us would say, or even simply _imply_ "do." "Then I took and threw it over my shoulder and walked off with it."
> 
> Don't know which is more "common," that or-- "*up* and." As in, "his grammar was so slovenly I just about up and died."
> 
> I'm gonna make sure and keep my ears peeled for other examples.


 
Sticklers?  Come on now, fox.  If you read my post closely, I did say that the usage was colloquial but not standard.  I'm sorry, but if I were a teacher and you turned in a paper with "try and" in it, I wouldn't let that slide.  It's simply incorrect English, regardless of whether it's used in everday speech.

Furthermore, this is not an idiom.  An idiom is either a phrase that cannot be translated literally into another language or a certain structure peculiar to a language that is not necessarily logical (cf. "depend on" in English vs. "depender de" in Spanish).  This is obviously not the former, and it is an incorrect structure so it cannot be the latter by definition.

That said, it is indeed slovenly *in a formal context.* 

Your well-spoken friend has my undying respect - provided he restricts his usage to speech and informal registers.  Otherwise, I wouldn't be enthralled about having him proofread my papers for me. 

I would say "up" is more common - I had never heard or used the "take" structure before.


----------



## jorge_val_ribera

Should I be alarmed because I was taught at school that "try and do something" was *correct* English?


----------



## elroy

jorge_val_ribera said:
			
		

> Should I be alarmed because I was taught at school that "try and do something" was *correct* English?


 
Yes!  

You will not find this structure in any written work worth reading.

You will hear it, yes, but it's not standard.


----------



## foxfirebrand

"I'm a stickler for details" is something I'd say about myself, so don't read too much of the negative in my little essay.  Teachers are sticklers, that's their job!  I'll admit to a slight chafing sensation about "slovenly" and "common in both senses of the word."  You may remember I touched on connotations of _common_ as a pejorative in BE and a quasi-honorific term in AE-- it was in the thread on the word _populace:_

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=38667&page=2&pp=10&highlight=dead+common

Not that I harbored any real animus over the criticism of "try and," even at that.  A "sloven" is a loose woman in pre-Victorian English, and the word was synonymous with _slatternly._  I was having a bit of fun with my mock-umbrage, and delivering an _apologia_ for stylistic sluts everywhere.

Again, the stickler is just who you want as a teacher, particularly for beginners.  So be sure and stick to your guns!


----------



## elroy

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> "I'm a stickler for details" is something I'd say about myself, so don't read too much of the negative in my little essay. Teachers are sticklers, that's their job! I'll admit to a slight chafing sensation about "slovenly" and "common in both senses of the word." You may remember I touched on connotations of _common_ as a pejorative in BE and a quasi-honorific term in AE-- it was in the thread on the word _populace:_
> 
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=38667&page=2&pp=10&highlight=dead+common
> 
> Not that I harbored any real animus over the criticism of "try and," even at that. A "sloven" is a loose woman in pre-Victorian English, and the word was synonymous with _slatternly._ I was having a bit of fun with my mock-umbrage, and delivering an _apologia_ for stylistic sluts everywhere.
> 
> Again, the stickler is just who you want as a teacher, particularly for beginners. So be sure and stick to your guns!


 
Good to know.  It was hard to pinpoint whether you were a proponent of my objection or whether you were repudiating it.

No animus on my part either.  I'll try and read better into your posts in the future.


----------



## foxfirebrand

> You will not find this structure in any written work worth reading.


Well Elroy, don't you think that's a little sweeping? It's one thing to make note of what's grammatically correct, and set the student straight about what his instructors expect. But are you sure the work of great authors grows out of grammar texts and style manuals, and that *nothing worth reading* has come from the pens of writers who slip up from time to time and say "try and understand" or "try and fathom" or "try and sleep it off?"

I'd've replied to you sooner, but excising the trash from my library and bringing it up to standards of readability took a bit longer than I thought. In fact, I think I hurt my back.

You'll be dismayed to learn that not much worth reading has come out of British literature since the time of Milton-- well, Swift anyway. And I think one of the Bronte sisters passed muster. So, curiously enough, did Bernard Shaw-- some revolutionary *he* turned out to be.

I'm not too surprised to see people like Kipling and Robert Louis Stevenson fall short, as they wrote for children-- but doesn't that make their frailty all the more shocking? The same goes for writers an impressionable juvenile might enjoy-- P.G. Wodehouse, Arthur Conan Doyle, E.M. Forster, Agatha Christie, Joseph Conrad...aw, not _Dickens!_ And Lewis Carroll? Say it ain't so, Father Dodson!

I don't imagine many lit students will mind seeing George Eliot thrown in the dustbin, and that ponderous old plodder, Thomas Hardy. And did anyone _ever_ read Thackeray and Samuel Butler and Henry James? Well, I liked James a lot, but I also like my grits runny, and look how I turned out!

Fortunately my library was a little scant on Galsworthy and Maugham and Chesterton and Edith Wharton, so I didn't have much of their verbiage to haul. But I hated to see D.H. Lawrence and Oscar Wilde and Virginia Woolf go-- what will tomorrow's rebellious youth read now, _Pilgrim's Progress?_ 

It'll have to do instead of _1984,_ but I guess if you've read one allegory you've read them all. Having assigned Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" as a style text to my (college freshmen) Rhetoric students, I was shocked by the hypocrisy of my erstwhile icon of clarity and cogency-- penning fiction that violated the benchmark rule that all written works in English must follow, to merit a reading. I hope I didn't do all those students any harm, foisting a clod like Orwell on them.

I'll be sure and do something to atone for it!


----------



## Agnès E.

jorge_val_ribera said:
			
		

> Should I be alarmed because I was taught at school that "try and do something" was *correct* English?


 
Thank you for your support, Jorge! 
And thank you to have made me smile, Cuchu!


----------



## elroy

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> Well Elroy, don't you think that's a little sweeping? It's one thing to make note of what's grammatically correct, and set the student straight about what his instructors expect. But are you sure the work of great authors grows out of grammar texts and style manuals, and that *nothing worth reading* has come from the pens of writers who slip up from time to time and say "try and understand" or "try and fathom" or "try and sleep it off?"
> 
> I'd've replied to you sooner, but excising the trash from my library and bringing it up to standards of readability took a bit longer than I thought. In fact, I think I hurt my back.
> 
> You'll be dismayed to learn that not much worth reading has come out of British literature since the time of Milton-- well, Swift anyway. And I think one of the Bronte sisters passed muster. So, curiously enough, did Bernard Shaw-- some revolutionary *he* turned out to be.
> 
> I'm not too surprised to see people like Kipling and Robert Louis Stevenson fall short, as they wrote for children-- but doesn't that make their frailty all the more shocking? The same goes for writers an impressionable juvenile might enjoy-- P.G. Wodehouse, Arthur Conan Doyle, E.M. Forster, Agatha Christie, Joseph Conrad...aw, not _Dickens!_ And Lewis Carroll? Say it ain't so, Father Dodson!
> 
> I don't imagine many lit students will mind seeing George Eliot thrown in the dustbin, and that ponderous old plodder, Thomas Hardy. And did anyone _ever_ read Thackeray and Samuel Butler and Henry James? Well, I liked James a lot, but I also like my grits runny, and look how I turned out!
> 
> Fortunately my library was a little scant on Galsworthy and Maugham and Chesterton and Edith Wharton, so I didn't have much of their verbiage to haul. But I hated to see D.H. Lawrence and Oscar Wilde and Virginia Woolf go-- what will tomorrow's rebellious youth read now, _Pilgrim's Progress?_
> 
> It'll have to do instead of _1984,_ but I guess if you've read one allegory you've read them all. Having assigned Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" as a style text to my (college freshmen) Rhetoric students, I was shocked by the hypocrisy of my erstwhile icon of clarity and cogency-- penning fiction that violated the benchmark rule that all written works in English must follow, to merit a reading. I hope I didn't do all those students any harm, foisting a clod like Orwell on them.
> 
> I'll be sure and do something to atone for it!


 
Ouch! 

My statement was impetuous, of course.  I was being too much of a *stickler* to consider the broader implications of the generalization I was so quick to espouse.

Thank you for putting me in my place.  I'll go back to my corner now and wallow in the aftermath of my aptly repudiated presumptuousness.


----------



## panjandrum

Well, well, well.

I am so glad I didn't bounce in on this thread with what I thought was a very clear view that of course it should be *try to*, not *try and*.
Ffb's comprehensive list of notable authors who have used *try and* rather took me by surprise.

So off I went to look for something to support - well to support either view. And in the New Fowler's Modern English Usage (another of my favourite authorities on English) I found:
"Arguments continue to rage about the validity of *try and* instead of *try to*...."
Well I knew that 

In 1926, Fowler concluded: "*try and* is an idiom that should not be discountenanced, but used when it comes natural."
The New Fowler reports on the usage of *try and*, with similar results to ffb's. He points out that many of the examples are from informal contexts or from non-British sources.
Interestingly, he also points out the "impossibility" of using *and* with other parts of the verb: *tries and*, *tried and*, *trying and*.

But he does not make any assertion about the rightness/wrongness of *try and*.

So?
I will continue to use *try to*, and I will probably continue to change *try and* to *try to* when that is appropriate 
But I really must rush off now to release the *try and* prisoners I have scheduled for execution tomorrow


----------



## foxfirebrand

> Ouch! I'll go back to my corner now and wallow in the aftermath of my aptly repudiated presumptuousness.


A little wallowing's good for you.  I enjoy a bit of it too, from time to time.



> I really must rush off now to release the *try and* prisoners I have scheduled for execution tomorrow


 
And just when I was about to trudge back into my library and tackle the even more daunting task of hauling off the _American_ authors! I tried to haggle with the sanitation engineer over how much extra to pay, and he told me to go to the landfill. Roughly speaking.

I guess it'd be easier just to lug the old worthies back in and restore them to their rightful places on the shelves. Close call!


----------



## cuchuflete

FFB...I'm a total stylistic slut when it comes to spoken language...the more spice and punch, the better.  I eschew grammar when that helps  drive a point home.  However, written English, other than recorded or fictional dialogue, is not the same as street speech.  I try to use  a different register, unless I'm writing informally to friends.  In that case, spoken and written styles converge into carefree slovenliness.  

I lament the ever more common tendency to commit spoken EN to writing,  with all the 'wannas' and 'gunnas' the law of the streetcorner allows, and then claim that these usages are grammatically correct because every body (_sic_) does it. Street talk is fine on the corner or the stoop, and may have its place in writing as well.  It is not, therefore, grammatically correct.  It's slang, argot, jargon, familiar, or whatever classification fits.  It's acceptable and useful in some circumstances.  When the writer doesn't know the difference between standard English and street chatter, it's not slovenly.  It's unfortunate. 

cheers,
Cuchu




			
				foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> "I'm a stickler for details" is something I'd say about myself, so don't read too much of the negative in my little essay. Teachers are sticklers, that's their job! I'll admit to a slight chafing sensation about "slovenly" and "common in both senses of the word." You may remember I touched on connotations of _common_ as a pejorative in BE and a quasi-honorific term in AE-- it was in the thread on the word _populace:_
> 
> Populace
> 
> Not that I harbored any real animus over the criticism of "try and," even at that. A "sloven" is a loose woman in pre-Victorian English, and the word was synonymous with _slatternly._  I was having a bit of fun with my mock-umbrage, and delivering an _apologia_ for stylistic sluts everywhere.
> 
> Again, the stickler is just who you want as a teacher, particularly for beginners.  So be sure and stick to your guns!





			
				foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> And just when I was about to trudge back into my library and tackle the even more daunting task of hauling off the _American_ authors! I tried to haggle with the sanitation engineer over how much extra to pay, and he told me to go to the landfill. Roughly speaking.
> 
> I guess it'd be easier just to lug the old worthies back in and restore them to their rightful places on the shelves. Close call!



Bless your heart FFB.  Now I don't have to burn my copies of Candy and Last Exit to Brooklyn.  And my Tom Robbins collection can stay too!  Whoopie!


----------



## foxfirebrand

I think there's a balance to be struck.  I mentioned Orwell-- he makes the point that plain-spoken language works on the page, and has advantages over "formal" language when the whole idea of formality is perverted into the formulaic.  Bureaucratese and "government-speak" are written languages that aim to transcend spoken forms, and obfuscation is not only the result-- it is often the deliberate aim of the "communication."

Formal language abhors change because it has a responsibility to be a language of record.  The challenge is to appropriate the salutory changes that _do_ occur in the language, especially as dynamic and even slang-driven a language as English.  Just as written "documentary" language can devolve into gobbledygook, changes in the spoken language can grow out of ignorance and laziness rather than creative innovation.

None of what you say is a good defense of bad written "style," and it is ubiquitous-- or an effective proscriptive criticism of spoken language ably incorporated into written forms, including but not limited to dialogue embedded in fictional or documentary narrative.

_Gonna_ and _kinda_ are what they are-- objections against them were once raised against contractions now considered standard.  _I'd've_ is correct now, but it was the _kinda_ of 50 years ago.  Also, I accept and even enjoy constructions that used to set my teeth on edge.  I used to hate _samwich,_ but after a couple of grad-level semesters of linguistics, I learned how fluid the human speech instrument is, and realized the [ndw] cluster was vestigial island that wouldn't last long in the new streambed.  [mw] is an AE solution that's gaining traction-- why is that more to be decried than the BE solution to a similar [nw] problem, _grennich?_ 

Well.  I hope I picked an example with analogous potential-- for all I know you're miles ahead of me, and even say _sammich!_  That far I'm prepared to go I guess, but not until I stop for a while and catch my breath.


----------



## JazzByChas

I have often been amazed by the lack of correct diction used to express ideas in the English language.

In particular, my question is about the above: which is correct?

ex. 1) I am going to *try and* make my house payment on time.
or
ex. 2) I am going to *try to* make my house payment on time.

I believe that no. 2 is correct.

Opinions? Advice?


----------



## mamboney

JazzByChas said:
			
		

> I have often been amazed by the lack of correct diction used to express ideas in the English language.
> 
> In particular, my question is about the above: which is correct?
> 
> ex. 1) I am going to *try and* make my house payment on time.
> or
> ex. 2) I am going to *try to* make my house payment on time.
> 
> I believe that no. 2 is correct.
> 
> Opinions? Advice?


 
My personal opinion (not that it matters) is that #2 is correct.
If you substitute the verb *try* with another that is synonomous (such as *attempt*)  

You get:
1) I am going to *attempt* and make my house payment on time.
2) I am going to *attempt to* make my house payment on time.


----------



## cuchuflete

#2 is correct, Chas, but we are fighting a losing (lost?) battle against common usage, which frequently substitutes 'and' for 'to' following an infinitive.  It's annoying to those who know English, but comfortable for millions who speak it without knowing it very well.


----------



## JazzByChas

Must agree, amigo mio...

Sadly the English language is becoming corrupted by bad usage, but that is life in this ever changing world...

P.S. Good example, Mamboney!  



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> #2 is correct, Chas, but we are fighting a losing (lost?) battle against common usage, which frequently substitutes 'and' for 'to' following an infinitive. It's annoying to those who know English, but comfortable for millions who speak it without knowing it very well.


----------



## coconutpalm

He stretched out his arm to try and reach the apple.
Does it mean that "he managed to reach" or that "he tried to reach"?
What's the difference between "try to do" and "try and do"? Or are they exchangeable?


----------



## foxfirebrand

This question was answered in a wonderful thread some time ago.  How fondly I remember cleaning out my library that day.
.


----------



## la reine victoria

coconutpalm said:
			
		

> He stretched out his arm to try and reach the apple.
> Does it mean that "he managed to reach" or that "he tried to reach"?
> What's the difference between "try to do" and "try and do"? Or are they exchangeable?


 
Hi Coconut Palm,

It means he tried to reach the apple. We don't know if he was successful.

"Try to do", "Try and do".

Grammatically "try and do" is incorrect. The verb is "try *to do* (something)".

I will try to do some work today.  

I will try and do some work today.  

Colloquially, "try and do" is used and accepted. There is no theoretical difference in meaning.

To try and reach is correct (it doesn't involve the word "do").

*Edit: I'm beginning to have doubts about "to try and reach".  I think it should be "to try to reach" (grammatically).  Colloquially it would be acceptable.*

Hope that is clear for you.


LRV


----------



## la reine victoria

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> This question was answered in a wonderful thread some time ago. How fondly I remember cleaning out my library that day.
> .


 

What a lot of discussion it provoked FFB!  Most interesting.  You have an excellent memory - it was nearly a year ago!



LRV


----------



## coconutpalm

LRV, fox, thanks for your replies! I've read the thread and know more about my second question.
Then could you answer my first question?


----------



## la reine victoria

I did, Coconut Palm, in post 3.  





LRV


----------



## coconutpalm

Yes, LRV, I read your post, but the words you used are too hard for me
Let me have a guess: you mean you don't approve of the usage of "try and do", do you?
And what do you mean by"Back to taking curmudgeon pills"——you stick to your ideas so other people may think you are stubborn?


----------



## panjandrum

He tried to reach the apple.
That's all we know.
He may have succeeded.
He may have fallen off the ladder.

The key point is that " ... to try and reach ..." does NOT mean that he tried AND he reached.

It is simply another way of saying "... to try to reach ...".

As will be clear from the posts on this thread, and the fascinating trip down memory lane that foxfirebrand has provided for us, there are many people who consider the _*try and*_ form incorrect.


----------



## foxfirebrand

panjandrum said:
			
		

> It is simply another way of saying "... to try to reach"



I submit that it is a way of saying "try to" that injects a little optimism, even hints that the effort will succeed.

"Try to" carries an element of uncertainty, even a challenge-- "you just try!"

The aversion in BE to a well-accepted AE idiom may have cultural or temperamental overtones.   A nation comprised almost entirely of the descendents of refugees and emigrants would only naturally say "try _and_ do" something.
.


----------



## beppo

Which one is correct or preferable ?
I'll try and come to the party tonight
I'll try to come to the party tonight

I tried to call you but the line was busy
I tried and call you but the line was busy

Thanks in advance


----------



## nay92

beppo said:


> Which one is correct or preferable ?
> I'll try and come to the party tonight
> I'll try to come to the party tonight
> 
> I tried to call you but the line was busy (i think)
> I tried and call you but the line was busy
> 
> Thanks in advance


 
Hope that helps


----------



## beppo

Sure it helps , thanks


----------



## Porteño

I agree with nay92


----------



## Gordonedi

beppo said:


> Which one is correct or preferable ?
> I'll try and come to the party tonight   (used in general conversation)
> I'll try to come to the party tonight   (grammatically correct, but sounds a little awkward with three "to"s in it.
> If I were using a shorter sentence, I would tend to say "I will try to come."  rather than "I will try and come."
> I tried to call you but the line was busy
> I tried and call you but the line was busy
> 
> Thanks in advance



You are most welcome.
Ciao !


----------



## JamesM

beppo said:


> Which one is correct or preferable ?


 
I'll try and come to the party tonight   (but commonly spoken)
I'll try to come to the party tonight 

I tried to call you but the line was busy 
I tried and call you but the line was busy  (not even commonly spoken)


----------



## Porteño

Hi, JamesM. What's wrong with 'I'll try and come to the party tonight'


----------



## JamesM

Porteño said:


> Hi, JamesM. What's wrong with 'I'll try and come to the party tonight'


 
It sets up a conflict. The second half of the sentence says you will come to the party tonight. The first half says you'll "try." The two are connected by "and". How can both be true?  Are you coming to the party or not? The issue is around the "and" - what is it doing there? What is it joining?

"I'll try to come" means that you will attempt to come. You may not be successful in your attempt, but you will make the attempt. 

Nevertheless, "I'll try and come" is a common way to express it.

"and come" can make sense in other sentences.  "Hurry up and come to the party!"  This is someone urging someone else to to do two things - "hurry up" and "come to the party."  But "try and (do something)" doesn't really make sense.  You're doing one _or_ the other, not both.


----------



## Dimcl

JamesM said:


> I'll try and come to the party tonight  (but commonly spoken)
> I'll try to come to the party tonight
> 
> I tried to call you but the line was busy
> I tried and call you but the line was busy  (not even commonly spoken)


 
I agree.  You often hear "I'll try and come..." but the word "and" is properly used as a connector of words, phrases, etc. and "come" means "to proceed", "to move toward", "to arrive by movement", etc.  Accordingly, you will make an *effort to* go/come to the party tonight.  You will *attempt to* go/come to the party.  You will *try to* go/come to the party.

Used correctly but in a longer sentence, you might say "I'll try *to* come to the party tonight *and *I'll bring a case of beer with me."

Sorry if I can't quote the grammar rules but I'm positive "to" is the correct word - can somebody else do the rules for me????


----------



## Porteño

I think it's splitting hairs to divide the two verbs and imply separate actions - I'll try and come' means exactly what it says - 'I'll do my best to be there'


----------



## JamesM

Porteño said:


> I think it's splitting hairs to divide the two verbs and imply separate actions - I'll try and come' means exactly what it says - 'I'll do my best to be there'


 
To each his own.  But what it actually says is: "I'll do my best _and_ be there."   It's interesting to me that you would use the "to" to explain the "and".


----------



## Kelly B

Porteño said:


> I think it's splitting hairs to divide the two verbs and imply separate actions - I'll try and come' means exactly what it says - 'I'll do my best to be there'


Indeed it is. I think splitting hairs is probably what beppo was looking for when he asked the question here.

Is _try and come_ idiomatic? Absolutely. Americans say it all the time, and this is a useful answer to_ someone trying to speak like a native. _

Is _try and come_ grammatically correct? Not really, for the reason JamesM offered. _Try to come_ is the better answer _to someone preparing for an English exam.

_Our answers are read by non-native speakers of both categories, so we should try _to _offer answers that are useful for both.


----------



## Porteño

The truth is JamesM is that I've probably never even given it a thought. It's an expression that I've been using all my life, at least, as far as I can remember! 'Try to' and 'try and' in this context have always been synonymous as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## foxfirebrand

The protocol around here is to use the search feature at the top of the page to "try and" find previous threads that might answer your questions.  It saves a lot of time and effort, and makes the forum threads more efficient in their interactive function in the WR dictionaries.

We covered "try and vs try to" very thoroughly.
.
.


----------



## cuchuflete

Thanks Mr. Fox...  That was indeed a fun thread.
Side note-- If you're gonna try and post links you find with Search, please delete the "&highlight" part at the end.  Those links expire pretty quickly.  This one may last a while longer:

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=39951
_
This is a link to the same thread Mr. Fox provided.

As Ella Fitzgerald sang so nicely, "I'm gonna sit right down an write myself a lettttttttter..."
_


----------



## foxfirebrand

cuchuflete said:


> If you're gonna try and post links you find with Search, please delete the "&highlight" part at the end.  Those links expire pretty quickly.


Thanks for the handy tip!  I love tweaking URLs.
.
.


----------



## cuchuflete

Back to the funhouse..."try" seems to take both 'to' and 'and', wearing both with relative comfort.  I suppose some other verbs do also.  But why do we not extend the 'and _infinitive_' to words such as attempt, endeavor, and other similar words?

Can you imagine this?

I'll attempt and get to school on time.
I'll endeavor and proclaim that prescriptive grammar is rotting in its fetid grave.


----------



## difficult cuss

Hi Folks,

This is my first question..I'm quite excited, goodness my life must be dull. Anyway why do we say "I'd try and use the dictionary" or etc rather than "I'd try to use the dictionary". It has always struck me as strange, esp as some efforts will fail, so the attempt would be made, but the use (in this case) would not.
I hope that I have explained myself well enough.


----------



## Dimcl

Good first question, Difficult Cuss!   I think the answer is that using "and" is a bad habit that many people get into.  I'd try.....and.....use the dictionary isn't right.  To me, this means two separate actions - I'm trying and I'm using the dictionary.  Trying what?


----------



## Vikorr

Lazy English is the answer to a lot of common phrasing


----------



## Mister Micawber

Indeed *informal*, but _Quirk et al_ give the form a little more legitimacy as 'pseudo-coordination'.  This structure belongs to a small group of words-- _try, stop, go, come, hurry up, run_.  They call _try_ a 'quasi-auxiliary' in this structure, and note that it seems to be limited to the base form of the verb (_*try* and_); such variations as (*X*) _he *tried* and used the dictionary_ do not work.
.


----------



## difficult cuss

Thank you to Dimcl and Vikorr, it is exactly as I thought. I have heard this everwhere including the BBC News...bah and humbug things aren't what the used to be. thank goodness. Also thanks Mister Micawber, I really ought to watch out for those dratted 'quasi-auxiliaries'.


----------



## cuchuflete

Remarkable!  They've gone and given it a name.  We have beat this "go and..." and "try and..." thing to death in many other threads, but this is the first time I've learned a name for it.

Consensus around here seems to be that it's probably grammatically wrong most of the time, but is so widespread that the grammarians will have to catch up with it.  If you hear me saying 'try and...' when I mean 'try to...' feel free to drop something on my foot.


----------



## difficult cuss

It's been a bug-bear of mine for ages, I hope that I never use it but if I ever do, I hope that I can remember 'quasi-auxiliaries' to excuse myself.


----------



## winklepicker

difficult cuss said:


> It's been a bug-bear of mine for ages, I hope that I never use it but if I ever do, I hope that I can remember 'quasi-auxiliaries' to excuse myself.


 
It's a normal part of many local accents/dialects and to my ear needs no excuse. NOT in written English though.


----------



## difficult cuss

hummmaybe so, but it does get me, so there! and given the true meaning of the words in the sentence, it doesn't make sense if you do not succeed in your attempt. 
If I were to accept things because I heard them, I'd succumb to football presenter speak, and say such things as "the boy done good"...which is fine for many people, but not to me. 
So in keeping with the season...bah and humbug.
Please note no offence is meant in this, I hope that the tongue-in-cheek approach carries in print.


----------



## LV4-26

Mister Micawber said:


> This structure belongs to a small group of words-- _try, stop, go, come, hurry up, run_.


Would one really assign the same degree of "incorrectness" to  all?
I mean I wouldn't dream of saying
_I'll go to see my cousin next week.
_or_
I'll come to see you.
_I'd  use _go and/come and _instead.
Am I wrong?
On the other hand, I think I'd rather use _"try to"_ than "_try and_"

Similarly, there's also the more colloquial *blank*, as in :
_Come see me tomorrow.
Go figure

_But I don't think I've ever heard_
Try use the dictionary.
_Have you?


----------



## winklepicker

Great contributions, both, DC and LV.

Circumstances alters cases.


----------



## difficult cuss

Indeed, when you promise to "go and see" you refer to two things, the journey "to" someone and "seeing" them, this is not the same as "I'll try and see you tomorrow" which is one thing "seeing", but is split by "and" as if it were two things. I think it is wrong.
If you say "I'll try to see you tomorrow" it is one thing again..."seeing". 
Or at least it is to me.


----------



## LV4-26

Yes, I understand that _try and _raises a logical problem (the one you mentionned in your very first post) that _do and_ and _come and_ do not.

Yet, on a strictly syntactic point of view, they seem to behave in the same way.
Remember :


			
				Mister Micawber said:
			
		

> [they]note that it seems to be limited to the base form of the verb (_*try* and_); such variations as (*X*) _he *tried* and used the dictionary_ do not work.


Isn't it the same for _go_ and _come_?
1 - I'll come *and *see you 
2 - When you came and saw me 
3 - When you came *to* see me. 

I don't think 2 is impossible but it's certainly less usual than 3, isn't it?


----------



## Thomas1

LV4-26 said:


> Yes, I understand that _try and _raises a logical problem (the one you mentionned in your very first post) that _do and_ and _come and_ do not.





LV4-26 said:


> Yet, on a strictly syntactic point of view, they seem to behave in the same way.
> Remember :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posté par *Mister Micawber*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [they]note that it seems to be limited to the base form of the verb (*try*_ and_); such variations as (*X*) _he *tried* and used the dictionary_ do not work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't it the same for _go_ and _come_?
> 1 - I'll come *and *see you
> 2 - When you came and saw me
> 3 - When you came *to* see me.
> 
> I don't think 2 is impossible but it's certainly less usual than 3, isn't it?
Click to expand...

According to Mr Quirk both verbs should be morphologically the same as well as in the base form so your second example would be "wrong" in terms of using _and_ as an alternative to _to_ (regardless of what is thought of _and_ used as an equivalent of _to_). IMHO, you may surely encounter examples of two morphologically different verbs which are on each side of _and_.



> "That's the girl for my money," he declared. […] I'm *going back there and ask* her to marry me.
> _Source_


 


> If you remember where it was, you could try *going back there and see* if it goes crazy again.
> _Source_


 



> But in the meantime, I'm *going outside and see* what it looks like.
> _Source_


 
IMHO, here _and_ clearly implies _to_. 
In cases like _try and verb, and_ is an equivalent of _to._ This is a pseudo-coordination since _and_ doesn’t coordinate anything here—it doesn’t join two elements of the same syntactic importance. Though, it is an informal way to construct an infinitive of purpose. 

As you see in these cases two morphologically different verbs are separated by an adverbial and, I think, don’t sound that wrong (please, comment if I am wrong). Nevertheless, people seem to use _try and verb_ more often than _try adverbial and verb_ (here, I’d also like to find out what natives, and not only, think).


Tom


----------



## difficult cuss

yeah right. meantime back in plain English land as a native speaker I have to say "uh?"


----------



## panjandrum

At this point, the thread took off in a different direction.  Posts not related to the specific topic of this thread have been herded together and may be found, relaxing, in
Miscellaneous meanderings and random ramblings around the topic of lazy English


----------



## Ynez

I wouldn't think "try and..." is incorrect. From my point of view, it is simply authentic English, just the way you express it and (as some Wolf-nick proved) has been used for very long.

For me "try to" is easier because it follows the same pattern as always and I'd know when to use it. But the way it is...I can never be sure if the most common is "try to" or "try and". I have a general idea, but natives have the certainty because it is just the way it is.


----------



## Porteño

Having re-read this thread, I have come to the conclusion that a ñot of the problem arises froma conflict (not unusual) between AE and BE. It seems to me that AE speakers tend to use 'try to' whereas BE speakers are more likely to use 'try and', especially when speaking.


----------



## JazzByChas

If you stop to think about it..what does "try and" really mean?

In the sentence "I am going to try to listen more carefully."

'going to try' is the verb in the future tense using the auxilliary 'go'

I believe when one says, "I am going to try and <do something>" this comes from improperly trying to say,

"I am going to try to <do the 1st thing> and try to <do the second thing>"

One can't "try and ..."  You are implying two things with the 'and' but you are incorrectly combining the two to corrupt the original intention of "try to <do something>"




Ynez said:


> I wouldn't think "try and..." is incorrect. From my point of view, it is simply authentic English, just the way you express it and (as some Wolf-nick proved) has been used for very long.
> 
> For me "try to" is easier because it follows the same pattern as always and I'd know when to use it. But the way it is...I can never be sure if the most common is "try to" or "try and". I have a general idea, but natives have the certainty because it is just the way it is.


----------



## JazzByChas

In Siggy's  examples below, the 'and' always joins two seperate verbs.

In sentences 1 and 2, "come" and "see "are two seperate verbs.

In sentence 3, "to see" is a gerund acting as an adverb.

In general, I think that "try to <do something>" is a phrasal verb, which cannot be stated as "try and"  
(see my previous post)



			
				LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Isn't it the same for _go_ and _come_?
> 1 - I'll come *and *see you
> 2 - When you came and saw me
> 3 - When you came *to* see me.


----------



## Ynez

JazzByChas said:


> In Siggy's  examples below, the 'and' always joins two seperate verbs.
> 
> In sentences 1 and 2, "come" and "see "are two seperate verbs.
> 
> In sentence 3, "to see" is a gerund acting as an adverb.
> 
> In general, I think that "try to <do something>" is a phrasal verb, which cannot be stated as "try and"
> (see my previous post)



With this you mean that you won't say:

_I'll come and see you._

???

Edit: I see here it is "come", but to my mind that use of "come and" is the same as with "try and"


----------



## JazzByChas

No...not necessarily
The below sentence is perfectly alright: it means that I wil do 2 things: I will come (to you) and I will see (you)

If you said "I will come to see you." it would have  a slightly different meaning: The main thing being done is 'come'  (I will come...)  and in this case (as in my example above) 'to see' is a gerund (acting as an adverb) explaining why I am coming...(to see you)



Ynez said:


> With this you mean that you won't say:
> 
> _I'll come and see you._
> 
> ???


----------



## Ynez

For you to have an idea of how complicated this is for foreigners, I'll tell you I'd translate into Spanish _I'll come and see you_ and _I'll come to see you_ in the same way


----------



## JazzByChas

In reality, "I'll come and see you" (at least in my humble opinion) is a bit of a less than desirable expression of the idea.

"I'll come to see you" works better in English, because
we would rarely say, "I'll come to you and see you" as it is a bit redundant to express it this way. 

"I'll come to see you" works better because if I am coming to see you, it is obvious I am coming to you so that I can behold you.

Just my way of using precise wording, I guess...



Ynez said:


> For you to have an idea of how complicated this is for foreigners, I'll tell you I'd translate into Spanish _I'll come and see you_ and _I'll come to see you_ in the same way


----------



## panjandrum

Don't over-analyse this.
It is natural in BE to say "... try and <verb>" rather than "... try to <verb>" - *sometimes*.
It does not logically mean that I am going to try something and I am also going to <verb>.
It means the same as try to.
It's tagged as colloquial in the OED.

The British National Corpus tabulates incidences by register.
For _try and_ there are 3,901 instances, 2,009 are spoken.
For _try to_ there are 8,707 instances, 655 are spoken.

Put another way, in spoken English, _try and_ is used 75% of the time.
In written English, _try to _is used 81% of the time.

<<... and the boring bit: this thread is about try and/ try to.  Come and see me later about the digressions >>


----------



## panjandrum

The AE Time Magazine corpus reports:
try to - 8,593
try and - 248


----------



## cuchuflete

Porteño said:


> It seems to me that AE speakers tend to use 'try to' whereas BE speakers are more likely to use 'try and', especially when speaking.


I won't try to speak for BE speakers, as Panj and the _Corpus _have made that clear, but
many, perhaps most, AE speakers use _try and_ frequently in speech.


----------



## Ynez

The funny thing about all this is that we have first to study the colloquial use, and practise it because it is not easy...and then later we are supposed to learn that is just colloquial and the easy way is considered better.

Anyway, all this has a happy end because "try to" is much easier really 


Should I then believe you all that I would never sound too strange using "try to" instead of "try and"?


----------



## panjandrum

Ynez said:


> The funny thing about all this is that we have first to study the colloquial use, and practise it because it is not easy...and then later we are supposed to learn that is just colloquial and the easy way is considered better.
> 
> Anyway, all this has a happy end because "try to" is much easier really
> 
> 
> Should I then believe you all that I would never sound too strange using "try to" instead of "try and"?


You would not sound strange to me.  But that is not a very good guide because I know that I sound strange to many people here


----------



## Ynez

Then I think this could be finally settled this way:

- Natives can use the one they prefer or are used to.

- Foreigners can always use "try to".

Or at least I will


----------



## JazzByChas

I would dare say that you could never sound wrong if you said, "try to" ... "try and" might raise a few learn-ed eyebrows...



			
				Ynez said:
			
		

> Should I then believe you all that I would never sound too strange using "try to" instead of "try and"?


----------



## Porteño

Ynez said:


> Then I think this could be finally settled this way:
> 
> - Natives can use the one they prefer or are used to.
> 
> - Foreigners can always use "try to".
> 
> Or at least I will


 
That seems to a most sensible finale to this interminable discussion.


----------



## gaer

cuchuflete said:


> I won't try to speak for BE speakers, as Panj and the _Corpus _have made that clear, but
> many, perhaps most, AE speakers use _try and_ frequently in speech.


I do. Try and stop me. 

(I use "try to", always, in writing).


----------



## sokol

Hello all,

sharp and short, my question is: are "try and find" vs. "try to find" considered both perfectly standard language or do you have a feeling that "try and find" still is colloquial and shouldn't be used in standard language?
Is there probably a difference between BE and AE?

I'm referring to uses like that:
(1) I must try and find something similar (vs.)
(2) I must try to find something similar.

In school I did learn that (2) is correct and that (1) is incorrect (my teacher would have marked the latter as an error) - but this was some time ago.

Meanwhile I find that "try and find" is used extensively not only by educated BBC speakers but also by authors of contemporary fiction. My impression is that "try and find" hardly could still be considered incorrect or inappropriate for standard language - its use is much too widespread already.
However, here's an US site on plague words (linked in another thread*)) where this use of "try and ..." is criticised.

There are also loads of hits for this construction here on WordReference - but I didn't find a thread about this specific topic (difficult to search for it of course as there could be one called "try and give" or "try and take" or whatever, and "and" is outruled as search word by forum search, for obvious reasons ).

*) I'm asking this as the topic came up in German forum where a German forero thought, as I did some years ago, that (1) "try and find" were incorrect; those interested - here's that thread about "try and find" (in German and English).


----------



## cuchuflete

There have been many threads about this, but the titles probably contain other verbs.

The verb+and usage is painfully common in colloquial speech, and has crept into a lot of writing, even including some written works that might be considered "formal", at least under the tails of the formal bell curve.  I think it is a matter of opinion if this is now standard, or simply very common colloquial usage.

Personally, I only cringe at it a little when I hear it spoken, but would suggest you avoid it in any written work except a casual personal note.  Because it is one more keystroke than "to", I imagine people use it either out of habit or to try to sound more familiar.


----------



## MichaelW

I think you are right that it is incorrect usage but very widespread.


----------



## suzi br

I agree with your analysis.  This idiom has been outlawed and vilified by people who set themselves up as guardians of standards.

The people wh ouse the language, on the usual hand,  have done their own thing and continued to use this little idiom. I think it is more widespread and becoming mainstream, but I doubt it is ever possible to pinpoint a time and say -- right -- it has moved  across the standards line. 

Look again in 60 years!


----------



## sdgraham

MichaelW said:


> I think you are right that it is incorrect usage but very widespread.



.... particularly in the U.K. in my experience.


----------



## cuchuflete

I love to see the word "incorrect" bandied about.  That means that we have at least one prescriptivist or even proscriptivist in the house.  Given that the usage (which I don't care for personally, only because it may be ambiguous) is so widespread, I prefer to call it informal or colloquial rather than "incorrect".  I leave correct to those who gag at the thought of a trailing preposition or get apoplectic at the sight of a split infinitive.


----------



## MichaelW

> I leave correct to those who gag at the thought of a trailing preposition or get apoplectic at the sight of a split infinitive.



I don't think that saying a usage is incorrect is prescriptive or proscriptive, it is just an observation (applying to the present day, today's 'incorrect' idiom could well be tomorrow's 'correct' usage).

"Try and" seems to me to be a fairly harmless usage, but, say, the drift towards using "disinterested" to mean "uninterested" isn't harmless (it distorts the meaning of a useful word) and I admit to small-scale apoplectic fits over such things.


----------



## cuchuflete

Fair enough.  Most spell checkers froth at the orifice when I type _prescriptivist _or _proscriptivist.  _I guess that means that those words are also "incorrect".  I am far from disinterested on the topic of _very unique_, a gag-worthy invention that defies logic, but I don't see verb+ and+bare infinitive in the same category.  It may be an evolution of the verb+infinitive form, easier to speak although potentially ambiguous.

For those who believe people, rather than grammar books, create language, the broad use of this form suggests
informality rather than wrongness.


----------



## sokol

Thank you all for the replies!


MichaelW said:


> I think you are right that it is incorrect usage but very widespread.


Just to summarise, in my post I said that I find it very difficult to see "try and find" as incorrect - because I just don't see the point in describing common use (and it is *very *common indeed as we all know) as "incorrect".
But that's just my impression and personal opinion, I'm not a native speaker. 

WR dictionary gives 5 threads for try to and (I've finally found out how to search for this ). To summarise native speakers opinions from those threads, here's what they say:
- some consider "try and find" as incorrect;
- some say that in spoken language they prefer "try and" but in written language they'd use only "try to";
- some think that language and use has changed and that "try and" is acceptable;
- some think that "try and" is perfectly idiomatic, and finally,
- one, Staloysius, even says that "try and" has been accepted for centuries already (seconded by se16teddy), and that it's better style even though it's not taught in English classes.

Also here's some statistics by panjandrum showing that in spoken language "try and" prevails while in written language "try to" is more common.


Oh - and finally, some personal experience: I think that at least British English speakers*) might think I'm a foreigner if I'd never use at all "try to find" (not even if I'd had a perfect accent, which I haven't but that's beside the point ), so I personally think that in order to sound idiomatic one should use this in spoken language. Thus my feeling that I find it difficult to say that "try and find" should be incorrect, grammatically.
*) I don't know many American English speakers, thus my reference to BE.


----------



## FromPA

panjandrum said:


> Well, well, well.
> 
> I am so glad I didn't bounce in on this thread with what I thought was a very clear view that of course it should be *try to*, not *try and*.
> Ffb's comprehensive list of notable authors who have used *try and* rather took me by surprise.
> 
> So off I went to look for something to support - well to support either view. And in the New Fowler's Modern English Usage (another of my favourite authorities on English) I found:
> "Arguments continue to rage about the validity of *try and* instead of *try to*...."
> Well I knew that
> 
> In 1926, Fowler concluded: "*try and* is an idiom that should not be discountenanced, but used when it comes natural."
> The New Fowler reports on the usage of *try and*, with similar results to ffb's. He points out that many of the examples are from informal contexts or from non-British sources.
> Interestingly, he also points out the "impossibility" of using *and* with other parts of the verb: *tries and*, *tried and*, *trying and*.
> 
> But he does not make any assertion about the rightness/wrongness of *try and*.
> 
> So?
> I will continue to use *try to*, and I will probably continue to change *try and* to *try to* when that is appropriate
> But I really must rush off now to release the *try and* prisoners I have scheduled for execution tomorrow


 
My experience with dictionaries of English usage is that they never take a stand on anything and simply cite expamples of famous people using bad grammar.  The bottom line is that ¨try and¨ simply doesn´t make sense.


----------



## Loob

FromPA said:


> The bottom line is that ¨try and¨ simply doesn´t make sense.


Well, it makes perfect sense to me 
I expect I've used it more than once in these forums....


----------



## mplsray

Loob said:


> Well, it makes perfect sense to me
> I expect I've used it more than once in these forums....



I agree with Loob, except I think I'll say it with a stern face: It makes perfect sense to me


----------



## LV4-26

I would just like to reiterate the same remark as for "come and see".

When I hear something like...
_I'll try and find it_

...I have no doubt it refers to one single action and it's strictly equivalent to _I'll try *to* find it._.

If I heard...
_I tried and found it_

...I'd have no doubt it referred to two distinct actions, i.e. I'd be sure the speaker finally found what they were looking for. (only, I would certainly find the sentence elliptically worded).

Therefore, informal? certainly. Incorrect? I don't know. But one thing is sure, [try and + V]  does have its own conjugational treatment. To me, that suggests some kind of "irregularity".


----------



## cuchuflete

FromPA said:


> My experience with dictionaries of English usage is that they never take a stand on anything and simply cite expamples of famous people using bad grammar.  The bottom line is that ¨try and¨ simply doesn´t make sense.



Small aside: Take a moment to read Fowler, _op. cit.,_ and Garner_, B (_Modern American Usage, OUP)_. _They take stands.


----------



## Ynez

Michael Swan in _Practical English Usage_ says more or less the same Panjandrum quoted from Fowler's: "try and" is used in colloquial speech, and it is not used in the past, etc..

R.A. Close. A Reference Grammar for Students of English. 1st Published 1975. Longman.


> _Try to_ write better: or _Try and write better_, the new act being      expressed by _and write_​
> 
> I tried to write better:  _to write_ not replaceable by _and wrote_​


​
He gives the same explanation again in a different section of the book, so it seems that is all he intends to say about it, not even _colloquial _added here. 



L.G. Alexander. Longman English Grammar. 1st Published 1988. Longman.



> *Go and buy* yourself a new pair of shoes (Not *_Go to buy_*)
> *Wait and see* (Not *_Wait to see_*)
> ...more examples with "come"...
> *Try and see* my point of view (Note *Try to* is also possible)



That is all. 

These books are especially designed for foreigners learning English.

We can see examples of "try and" in a book of Quirk's here:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=es&id=CrhZAAAAMAAJ&q="try+and"&pgis=1


----------



## colophonius

I hope I'm not rushing in here, but - heck - I'm no angel, so here goes. If someone does not check whether an O-ring is correctly fitting and a space shuttle explodes as a consequence, I'd call that slovenly work. However, if someone writes in an internet forum (in an _internet_ forum, remember) "I'll try and get it right", then as far as I'm concerned that's perfectly all right and quite acceptable in the context. If it is wrong in someone's eyes, not good style, not the "Queen's English", that still does not qualify it for the description 'slovenly'. BE is frequently less pedantic than AE, and this seems to be yet another example of BE speakers being less concerned with what is 'right' than with what is often said (or written). I'd add a big smiley face if I knew how to do it here. Consider it done (by a stylistic slut)!


----------

