On 'to' and 'and'

[Jonluw]

Hiya escapists.
[sub]Take into account that I'm not a native English speaker. It might very well be that I am wrong here, but it annoys me never the less.[/sub]

So, my comrades. For a good while now, a trend I have noticed in the English language has been bothering the hell out of me. Observe the following sentence:
"I'm going to try and kill that gopher"
Seems like a perfectly good sentence, no? If someone was going to kill a gopher, surely that sounds like something they might say? And indeed, that is how most people formulate their sentences when they want to convey that they are going to try to do something. That's the thing though: They're going to try to do something.

They're not going to try to do something unrelated, and then kill the gopher. No, killing the gopher is what they're going to try to do. By using 'and', does one not separate the action of trying from the action of killing the gopher?
The formulation in the example implies two actions in the sentence - Trying and killing - when what people are trying to get across is only one action: Trying to kill.
If you were going to do something else, and kill the gopher while you're at it, the sentence could make sense. For example: I'm going to try to get that rat-poison down from the shelf, and kill the gopher with it.
In this case it makes sense to use 'and'. What you're trying to do, is getting the rat-poison down from the shelf. Killing the gopher is a separate action, although related.

I think what confuses people and makes them do this error is the "going to" part. People don't seem to think you can have two infinitives in a sentence, and therefore exchange the second infinitive marker with an 'and'.
Consider the imperative:
Try to kill that gopher.
Here, the word 'to' is used. Noone's having a problem with that. However; the moment you add a "Going to" to the front, people will switch the original 'to' for an 'and'.

Spoiler: The reason this annoys me so much:

In my language, the words 'to' and 'and' sound extremely similar, and a lot of people get them mixed up, even in completely basic sentence-structures. Mixing up 'to' and 'and' is a staple of 13 year-olds and people with a poor understanding of the language. I can simply not take a person seriously if they get these two words mixed up in a text. I simply can't avoid picturing the person writing to me as being a juvenile asshat who's "too cool for grammar".
Therefore, since this mix-up is so common, the rules for when to use 'to' and when to use 'and' have been hammered into my head throughout my elementary school years, and there is no way I can read a text where an 'and' is wrongly placed without a red warning light going off inside my head.

I apologize if I am wrong, and writing the sentence with the word 'and' is actually correct; but to me, the use defies logic, and I find it tremendously annoying.

/rant

So tell me escapists: Are there more people out there who are annoyed by this use of the word 'and', or is it really the correct way of writing a sentence?

Edit: Most failed thread ever, okay. Edit-edit: Aaaand, suddenly, I get replies...

 

[Jonluw]

It's informal language. Informal language doesn't have to adhere to strict rules. As long as the sentence gets the point across, who cares about the odd error or two?


I wouldn't use such a phrase in formal contexts but if I'm just talking to my buddies I will likely say that.

I can understand dropping correct grammar in informal language; such as saying 'who' instead of 'whom', but this isn't purely a grammatical problem. The use of the word simply doesn't make sense. It's like when people say "I could care less" when what they mean is they couldn't care less.

Who/whom is a grammatical nitpick-error. To/and, and "I could care less" are nonsensical.

 

[Veylon]

Your problem is that you're learning English from the outside. The words 'and' and 'to' are made very distinct to you and the misuse sounds wrong. As a native English speaker, I've always heard 'and' used this way, so it sounds right to me. Using 'to' correctly would sound slightly stilted to, like using 'whom', or using 'as' instead of 'like' here.

 

[Snake Plissken]

To/and, and "I could care less" are nonsensical.

I was pondering this last night and came to the conclusion that "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less" can both be used, but not interchangeably. Let's use Valve's recent lack of innovation as an example. If you were the type of person who actually cares about innovation, you could say that you could care less for Valve now because of their lack of innovation. If you are the type of person who will buy Valve games no matter what, you could say that you couldn't care less about Valve's lack of innovation because you'd buy whatever they're selling anyways.

 

[Hader]

It's informal language. Informal language doesn't have to adhere to strict rules. As long as the sentence gets the point across, who cares about the odd error or two?

This.

Imagine if American politicians had to force themselves to adhere to the strictest guidelines.



...we would be fucked.

 

[Plurralbles]

you. Grammar nazi.

GTFO.

I recognize your plight though and it is commendable on occasion. Just not now. I blame it on the time of morning.

 

[Motti]

I apologise if you or anybody else had to learn it as a second language, but the english language is basically a dog's breakfast when it comes to grammar and organising the whole damn thing. Blame the Romans. And the Saxons. And the Vikings. And the Normans. And anybody else who trampled all over Britain and left bits of their language behind.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to try and fend of boredom some more.

 

[latenightapplepie]

I occasionally catch myself misusing these two words in this way. I don't really judge other people for doing it, because it doesn't annoy me when they do it. However when I do it, I feel ashamed.

So I do my best not to. I certainly never do it in writing.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

It's informal language. Informal language doesn't have to adhere to strict rules. As long as the sentence gets the point across, who cares about the odd error or two?

This is my general rule when criticising people's language on this forum. Once the grammar becomes impenetrable or a chore to read, that's when there's a problem. A small error that doesn't detract from a readers ability to understand the message is not a problem.

 

[loc978]

...I consider myself a grammar nazi, but I certainly don't take it that far...

However, I do commiserate with you. Culture shock is definitely a valid reason for such a nit-pick. Kudos for learning a foreign language, by the way (Slang and informal speech is always the hardest part, or so I'm told).
...I've been half-heartedly trying to learn a few different languages for years, but it's just never been important enough to commit to...

 

[Jonluw]

To/and, and "I could care less" are nonsensical.

I was pondering this last night and came to the conclusion that "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less" can both be used, but not interchangeably. Let's use Valve's recent lack of innovation as an example. If you were the type of person who actually cares about innovation, you could say that you could care less for Valve now because of their lack of innovation. If you are the type of person who will buy Valve games no matter what, you could say that you couldn't care less about Valve's lack of innovation because you'd buy whatever they're selling anyways.

Of course, "I could care less" is a perfectly valid sentence. The problem is just that people use it when they mean "I couldn't care less".
Besides, saying "I could care less" is sort of arbitrary, since it's a very poor description of how much you care about something. It could imply that you care enourmously, or that you barely care at all. The only thing it's ruling out is that the speaker couldn't care at all; which is normally exactly what they are trying to convey.

Spoiler: Argument courtesy of David Mitchell.

Edit:

...I've been half-heartedly trying to learn a few different languages for years, but it's just never been important enough to commit to...

I know the feeling. I'm doing French in school, and I simply can't get myself to work with it.
I understand most of the stuff while I'm in class, but by the time of the next French class, I've forgotten it.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

I may be wrong but as far as I know that's very much an Americanism as well. I've never heard an English speaker, even the most gramatically illiterate Norfolk farmer, use the phrase 'try and do something.'

But yes, you are right, saying you will and try and do something is completely wrong.