HoD Grammar thread

[Emperor Harkonnen]

Didn't the Baron try and encourage it?

this is a bit off-topic, but I have been woundering for a while: when you write "try and encourge" is that right? I would think it should be "try to encourage", but I am not sure what is right in english. Can you write both?

[Dunenewt]

Both as far as I'm aware.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

Well in norwegian it would be a serious flaw to write "and(og)" instead of "to(

[gunner154]

What would the 'try' be referring to?

Well, if Margot worked on him, having Fenring work too would make him like Fenring (I don't think that's considered bisexual). It's not exactly the Baron's homosexuality...

[Emperor Harkonnen]

Are you going to try AND IN ADDITION encourage? I don't think so. This is only one action. I think AND is supposed to add something new.

[Dunenewt]

To settle this:

Although "try and" is common in colloquial speech and will usually pass unremarked there, in writing try to remember to use "try to" instead of "try and."

[gunner154]

I'll try and to remember that.

[MrFlibble]

Are you going to try AND IN ADDITION encourage? I don't think so. This is only one action. I think AND is supposed to add something new.

There is certainly a difference in semantics. Just compare:

(1) He can try to get in.

(2) He can try and get in. = 'He can try (to get in). He can get in.'

In (1), the verb in the infinitive ("to get in") is an actant of the predicate ("can try"). In (2), there are two separate predicates, "can try" and "(can) get". Same with the sentence that started this discussion:

(3) The Baron tried to encourage it.

(4) The Baron tried and encouraged it. = 'The Baron tried (to encourage it). The Baron encouraged it.'

Oh, and sorry for getting so far off-topic. This should actually be in the Language Thread.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

Then you would not know what he tried. It would in your case 2 be "he tried, and got in" It doesn't make any sense otherwise.

[Dunenewt]

Let's just listen to the native speaker.

[MrFlibble]

Then you would not know what he tried.

It is implied that the action which somebody tries is the same as the one denoted by the second predicate.

[Mahdi]

Wow, this debate brings back memories... Edric and I used to argue over and over again about Paul beign a hero or a villian, and most of them came down to the Jihad, how many people he klled, and whether he actually ahd control of it or not.

[gunner154]

I think we all agree that MrFlibble is right. Hurray!

Now, we were talking about the Baron's homosexuality, weren't we?

[Emperor Harkonnen]

I think we all agree that MrFlibble is right. Hurray!

Nope, what dunenewt wrote was right. And I trust he knows, since he is native speaker  ;)

[MrFlibble]

First, Dunenewt, could you tell what exactly you were quoting?

Second, Emperor Harkonnen, if you say I'm wrong, you mean that (if I understood your point clearly) that the structure "to try and do something" is grammatically incorrect and therefore it cannot be used in literate speech. However, it never the less is used by speakers.

My point is that both structures are possible and they have a semantic difference. Also, I agree that one is more preferable in terms of literary norm, but mind you that lots of legitimate linguistic facts exist outside the norm (dialects, colloquialisms etc.).

Finally, you must distinguish between the native speakers inherent linguistic competence and a linguist's ability to interpret language facts. Even though a native speaker possesses the ability to generate speech according to the "rules" of his/her language, those native speakers without adequate linguistic training may be unable to explain or fully understand the underlying linguistic processes in their very own language.

I think Nema would help us greatly in this discussion :)

[Dunenewt]

What I used was a colloquialism, so essentially if I said it to one of my friends, or just about any other British person, they would not say it was wrong, but I shouldn't really use it in writing.

[MrFlibble]

What you say confirms my argument that both phrases are grammatically correct, but are different in respect to the literary norm.

But what exactly were you quoting in your post above?

[Dunenewt]

No, grammatically it was incorrect, it is a colloquialism.  I just typed 'try and' into Google I think, that that was the first page.

[MrFlibble]

Colloquialism =/= grammatically incorrect

[Dunenewt]

No, not necessarily, but in this case it is.

Split topic someone?

[MrFlibble]

Grammatically incorrect linguistic phenomena are those that an adult native speaker normally never utters, and will immediately react with something like "you can't say that!" upon encountering those in someone else's speech. E.g.:

*These it's grammatically a incorrect sentence.

*Me fail English? Unpossible!

if I said it to one of my friends, or just about any other British person, they would not say it was wrong

Thus, "try and do something" isn't grammatically incorrect, or is it?

[Dunenewt]

Try this link, it should explain everything:

http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/g43.html

[Emperor Harkonnen]

Grammatically incorrect linguistic phenomena are those that an adult native speaker normally never utters, and will immediately react with something like "you can't say that!" upon encountering those in someone else's speech. E.g.:

*These it's grammatically a incorrect sentence.

*Me fail English? Unpossible!Thus, "try and do something" isn't grammatically incorrect, or is it?

Are you sure that definition of what is grammatically correct is correct? I doubt that. In Norway we have a language counsil of some sort, which decides what is ok and what is not.

Something can be ok to say, even though it is not correct to write it. You have examples of that in many languages. I would say it is grammatically incorrect as long as you cannot write it.

[MrFlibble]

Quotes from that page:

Some grammarians label try and as incorrect when really it is just very informal and best used in conversation.

So I was right about the structure being grammatically correct.

Often try and is interchangeable with try to, but there are some contexts in which try and implies success, e.g., "Do try and behave," and others where try and is ironic and implies failure, e.g., "Try and make me move."

The semantic difference I was talking about.

Are you sure that definition of what is grammatically correct is correct?

<...>

I would say it is grammatically incorrect as long as you cannot write it.

You mix up grammaticality and literary norm. This view stems from the belief that written language is somehow "better" than spoken language. On the contrary, spoken language is obviously the primary mode of language existence. Quote from Wikipedia:

For native speakers of natural languages, grammaticality is a matter of linguistic intuition, a competence learned by language acquisition in childhood.

No human organization can ever affect grammar or language in general. The council you mention defines literary norm, not the grammar of your language.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

Nope the organization cannot affect how people speak, but they can decide what is being learned at school, and what is correct way to write books, and what words/grammer are written in dictionaries etc.  ;)

But it seems we have different opinions on this matter, and I have ruined dunenewt's thread enough with this discussion now, so lets just leave it with this.

Anyway, back to topic - has any of the heroes of dune books been published yet?