Tollers
New Member
What a lovely conversation and so interesting and also taking me back two decades to college 
My response is rather "boring" potentially, but I will provide it based on simply what was once corrected to me.
Situation: It was 2001, I was in my last semester of my BA at the University of London, England. I was taking my last Lit class "Shakespeare in London" and my professor for that course (unlike my other ones was a "British-native"). I was corrected in a paper on this very grammatical impulse (being American myself) and got an extra dose of lecture on "the prodigal tongue!"
Quote: "It would have been useless in any case to try and win over the honest Radaghast to treachery." (FotR 278)
What I was told summary: When a verb is used in the Infinitive form separated by a conjunction, you do not add a preposition (in the case above "to") as you need a conjunction to separate the two infinitive verb forms.
Summary of the Rationale I was given: The infinitive is acting as a noun (idea), the conjunction is indicating a phrase that can stand on its own. The verbs on either side are pertaining to the same primary subject and the idea-actions especially can have different effects/intentions/outcomes. Emphasis he added is it uncouth to end a sentence in a preposition even separated by a conjunction. I was told it would be more appropriate to write "to try and to win," but it is redundant (e.g., "to run and to jump" communicates similarly "to run and jump" but not the same to say "to run to jump".
Naturally, I told him that CSL disagreed on the arbitrary English rule to end a sentence in a preposition and cited him "Letters to An American Lady" for his fuller explanation, but leveraging the other parts of the explanation of what I was given (and in my listen today to the other examples provided in the broadcast, Tolkien's use seem to hold up).
Break-down:
"It would be been useless in any case to try." "to try" as the infinitive noun clarifying a portion of the "It" stands alone with the implied subject "Radagast." Saruman's means "to try" could have been many ways/methods (to try threats, to try mind reading, to try his ring, to try bribes), and they were not needed anyway as they were "useless" to the ends in need.
The separate sentence "[To] win over the honest Radagast to treachery" can stand alone. "win" is clarifying a portion of the "It" and being separated by a conjunction is communicating it is a separate idea/action from "to try". "Win" communicates a position/result/perspective.
There can be a lot of "trying" and no "winning." There can be "winning" and no "trying." Either proved not necessary. The infinitives are separate ideas, and the conjunction highlights this intentionally.
Anyway, from what I can tell, S:168 got to a similar outcome. At least what my England professor told me (not saying he was right) was the conjunction matters.
My response is rather "boring" potentially, but I will provide it based on simply what was once corrected to me.
Situation: It was 2001, I was in my last semester of my BA at the University of London, England. I was taking my last Lit class "Shakespeare in London" and my professor for that course (unlike my other ones was a "British-native"). I was corrected in a paper on this very grammatical impulse (being American myself) and got an extra dose of lecture on "the prodigal tongue!"
Quote: "It would have been useless in any case to try and win over the honest Radaghast to treachery." (FotR 278)
What I was told summary: When a verb is used in the Infinitive form separated by a conjunction, you do not add a preposition (in the case above "to") as you need a conjunction to separate the two infinitive verb forms.
Summary of the Rationale I was given: The infinitive is acting as a noun (idea), the conjunction is indicating a phrase that can stand on its own. The verbs on either side are pertaining to the same primary subject and the idea-actions especially can have different effects/intentions/outcomes. Emphasis he added is it uncouth to end a sentence in a preposition even separated by a conjunction. I was told it would be more appropriate to write "to try and to win," but it is redundant (e.g., "to run and to jump" communicates similarly "to run and jump" but not the same to say "to run to jump".
Naturally, I told him that CSL disagreed on the arbitrary English rule to end a sentence in a preposition and cited him "Letters to An American Lady" for his fuller explanation, but leveraging the other parts of the explanation of what I was given (and in my listen today to the other examples provided in the broadcast, Tolkien's use seem to hold up).
Break-down:
"It would be been useless in any case to try." "to try" as the infinitive noun clarifying a portion of the "It" stands alone with the implied subject "Radagast." Saruman's means "to try" could have been many ways/methods (to try threats, to try mind reading, to try his ring, to try bribes), and they were not needed anyway as they were "useless" to the ends in need.
The separate sentence "[To] win over the honest Radagast to treachery" can stand alone. "win" is clarifying a portion of the "It" and being separated by a conjunction is communicating it is a separate idea/action from "to try". "Win" communicates a position/result/perspective.
There can be a lot of "trying" and no "winning." There can be "winning" and no "trying." Either proved not necessary. The infinitives are separate ideas, and the conjunction highlights this intentionally.
Anyway, from what I can tell, S:168 got to a similar outcome. At least what my England professor told me (not saying he was right) was the conjunction matters.