Date:  Sun, 13 Apr 1997 14:49:03 +0000
<br>From:  Bill Spruiell  3lfyuji[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU 
<br>Subject: Re: Variation in "try"-complements?
<br>
<br>Thus far, it seems as if there is quite a bit of variation on
<br>people's interpretations of 'try', 'remember', and 'forget' with the
<br>two complement types. One reason I raised the issue was that
<br>textbooks, specifically ESL textbooks like Azar's [a staple in many
<br>ESL grammar courses] present a nice, neat system with four verb
<br>categories and clear rules for interpreting meaning changes in
<br>category 4 (to which those verbs "belong"). Now, the last thing that
<br>would surprise me is that a pedagogical grammar covers up some
<br>variation; however, in many other cases, there's some hazily defined
<br>but *recognized*"standard" that the ignored variations are variations
<br> *to* (e.g. most prescriptive grammars don't address the "fixing to"
<br>construction, but I think most authors of them are aware of it and
<br>consciously regard it as a regional item). I'm left wondering to what
<br>extent variation with these complements has reached "pedagogical
<br>awareness", and whether textbook authors are, on this issue,
<br>*unconsciously* creating a standard rather than consciously
<br>attempting to manifest a standard they believe exists.
<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>