JohnWittle wrote:I am talking about "try and [verb]" instead of "try to [verb]", which is just plain incorrect.
I know what you're talking about, and you have yet to offer any reason for me to believe you.
And did you miss the part where it said, "Try
did not appear as try and
until the 17th century, when our familiar sense of the word was first established. Interestingly, the earliest example for the "make an attempt" sense in the OED involves the try and construction
, so try and
may actually be older than try to
The OED example mentioned was the sentence, "They try and express their love to God by their thankfulness to him," from 1686. Which is 11 years earlier than the first "try to" sentence.
JohnWittle wrote:I don't even know WHY people started doing this.
That doesn't surprise me. For one thing, no one seems to know, since people started using "try and [verb]" right around the same time they started using "try to [verb]".
For another, there seems to be quite a great deal that you don't know about language. I suspect people could fill books with the stuff.
If I might offer a suggestion, though: if you want to learn any of the volumes of stuff you don't know, you might want to avoid making broad insulting declarations about what is or isn't correct about other users' grammar. Especially when you're factually wrong on top of it. That sort of shit tends to put people off of helping you, if indeed you are interested in friendly interactions.
If you're not, and instead you came here to stir up shit, then just leave now and everyone will be the happier.
Edit: If, on the third hand, you actually made that post as an example of the sort of thing you could say among this
group of linguistic dabblers to make us sit up and pay attention, the way "try and use" might work in a room full of ignorant grammar nazis, then I have to say well-played, sir.