Date:  Thu, 10 Apr 1997 22:53:50 +0000
<br>From:  Bill Spruiell  3lfyuji[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU 
<br>Subject: Variation in "try"-complements?
<br>
<br>This is one of those topics that may have already been discussed; if
<br>so, please accept apologies --
<br>
<br>In my grammar class yesterday, I was engaged in presenting the unit
<br>on verbs that take gerundial or infinitival objects. I checked to see
<br>if anyone used the "enjoy to X" pattern; as I expected for my
<br>Michigan class, no one did. However, when I got to the class of verb
<br>constructions that change meaning depending on whether the object is
<br>an infinitive or gerund ("forgot to lock the door" vs. "forgot
<br>locking the door"), I got a surprise. None of my students could
<br>detect any difference between "tried opening the door" and "tried to open
<br>the door", even when I supplied extensive contexts, different
<br>verbals, etc.
<br>
<br>Assuming that they really do use the gerund and infinitive objects
<br>interchangably with "try" -- i.e. that it's not an artifact of my
<br>presentation of the subject -- I was wondering what the dialectal
<br>status of this "reassignment" is. Is it common over a wide area, or
<br>have I stumbled into a Central Michigan shibboleth? I'm considering
<br>it as being in varience with "standard" since textbooks
<br>(particularly ESL textbooks) class "try" with "forget";
<br>as a southerner, I'm a bit leery of trusting my instincts on things
<br>like this (I was 23 before I found out that "fixing to" was nonStandard).
<br>
<br>Thanks --- Bill Spruiell
<br>-------------------------------------------------
<br>Opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily represent those of Central Michigan U.
<br>
<br>Bill Spruiell
<br>Central Michigan University
<br>Dept. of English Language and Literature
<br>