On Sunday 08 January 2006 00:36, Chris BONDE wrote: > On 1/6/06, Chris BONDE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Now let us look at > > 'try and ...' > > instead of "try to"? > ++++ > How can one try and jump over the fence? You will try TO jump over the > fence, then you will find whether you did or did not. > > "and" is to join two or more 'equal' objects together into one sentence. > +++++
At the risk of lengthening this debate, I agree with Fowler's "Modern English Usage", where a useful distinction is drawn between these two. "Try and" is an encouraging statement expecting success. "Try to" is at best neutral, and especially in the past to my ear is likely to precede a failure or apology. "I tried to attend, but missed the bus" as against "I will try and attend the game tomorrow". > > 'getting started' > > instead of "got started"? or "start"? or what? > ++++++ > Why not just How to start or Starting out > +++++ > > and > > > 'I got .... ' > > "I have"? > > but what do you say when someone asked you what you received for your > birthday? It's not "I have" - it's "I got". > ++++ > If I say, "I got a great book.". > What does that mean? Does that mean I received, stole, bought, etc a book. > > 'got' is the past tense (or past participle, but usual the past tense) of > 'get' 'get' can mean > come to have got a book > obtain get a book, got a book > receive, gain get or got a book > catch, got a cold > do get a haircut > become get old > be get nervous. > > So why not use a nice short word that will allow the hearer to know more of > what you mean. It is simple to say some of the other words rather than > keep on using get, got, or git. The various uses of "get" go back to Shakespeare and before as perfectly ordinary colloquial English. They do not appear so often in literary works, but because they are so concise I see no reason to ban them; the alternatives can sound too formal or stilted. Incidentally, the use of "have got" for to possess also has a long history and is probably fixed in colloquial usage because the verb "to have" is often shortened after pronouns (I've, he's, we'd etc), and so the meaning is less easily heard unless another verb (to get) is added. Tricky thing, English. > > Just my humble opinion. Ditto. Andy. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
