I've encountered various syntaxes with the verb "try".

Is there a slight nuance between "Try and answer" on the one hand, and "Try to answer" on the other hand? And if so, where does "try answering" come in?

Or maybe all three expressions have exactly the same meaning?

There is no “slight nuance” – “try to answer” is the correct form. “Try and answer” is incorrect.

You try TO do something. If you try AND do it, it implies that first you will try and then you actually accomplish what you have tried; i.e. you will TRY to answer, AND then you will answer.

Alternatively, to try TO answer, implies one verb or one action. Using AND implies two verbs or two actions - to try (first verb/action) AND (then to) answer (second verb/action).

Try answering can also be used but is less common and would usually be utilised in the form of a command – e.g. “Try answering this question”.

[My boss drives me crazy because she uses "try and" frequently throughout her dictation. I always change it to "try to". So far she hasn't noticed].

Yep, I'm with MG here. "Try and" is just straight out and out incorrect.

It's used a lot colloquially, and I doubt if anyone notices or cares in that context. It does not belong, at all, in anything written.

I agree with Mother Goose and Agony. Many colloquial expressions are perfectly acceptable when used verbally--colloquial speech is informal in nature. However, written speech requires a degree of formality that you don't necessarily expect to hear in verbal form.

Even as I was reading this and got as far as "Try and answer" I was shaking my head, that isn't correct.

Thanks for your kind responses.

I would imagine this sort of thing is difficult for those for whom English is a second language. If you see a usage everywhere, it's reasonable to assume that it's correct.

I admire anyone who can learn English as a second language. It is a very difficult language to learn even in its "pure" form (if there is such a thing). But when you consider factors such as the fact that most of the "rules" have a high percentage of exceptions to those rules, that half the word are foreign in their origins, the prevalence of slang and neologisms that spread like wildfire thanks to social media, television etc, (e.g. twerking) - well, it's a wonder that anyone manages to learn it.

I use Facebook to keep in touch with my children, godchildren, nieces and nephews etc, and I can't understand half of what they post, particularly the American ones - I find myself googling definitions and ending up on websites like streetgangslang.com.

Don't feel alone MotherGoose! I live in the United States and still can't understand some regional dialects!

I'm in equal admiration. I got on okay with learning languages in school, did well and enjoyed them, at one stage I was learning Irish, French and German, but never continued with any of them after school and I regret that. I couldn't face the struggle of trying again now though.

I expect it's helpful that there are so many ways to immerse yourself in the English language, from music, TV and film culture to a site like this to the use of it in business - it's probably hard to avoid. Of course, a lot of that culture includes the errors, that's one of the reasons it's important that people who are sure of their grammar keep making the rest of us aware of the mistakes we are making.

When it comes to "try and see" I expect part of the issue is that sometimes it is correct to say "try and see".

"I don't think the key fits."
"Well, let's try and see."

Or am I wrong?

Wrong. The response to "I don't think the key fits" should be "Well, let's try." There's a qualifier of the word 'try' which is "to see if it works" but there's no need to say that bit as it's superfluous. As is the word "Well" but I'll give you that as I'm always saying it.

"Well, let's try..........and, see? It did work, I told you it would!"

"I'm putting the key in the lock, and I'm opening my eyes."

Eats shoots, and leaves.

Rabbits do that.

What if it's "Let's try (the key) and (then we'll) see (if you're right)"?

Punctuation can change the meaning of a sentence. Example:

Moses was the son of Pharaoh's daughter.
Moses was the son of Pharaoh's, daughter.

So, Martha, do you mean that "Try, and answer" would be a correct sentence?

No, I'm just pointing out how "complicated" the English language can be. However, I believe "Try, and then answer" might be correct.

Apologies if I'm being dumb but what does that mean?

I read that version as someone explaining to their daughter that Moses was the son of Pharaoh. It might have been easier to read if it was intimating son of Pharaohs (plural), i.e., "Moses was the son of Pharaohs, daughter", said Abdelon to his child.

It just doesn't make sense to me as a sentence at all (at least not one that anyone would ever write or speak). If it had been as "was a son of Pharaoh's" then that would be more workable.

As it is it just reminds me of Chomsky's "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously".

Yes, and this is a growing problem as increasingly, those given a platform for public expression are lifelong non-readers. At the risk of sounding snobbish: such people are more likely to use non-standard English.

I'm thinking particularly of newsreaders in US cities. (Perhaps there is more rigorous vetting in other English-speaking nations; I hope that's the case!)