3

Someone is trying to use a device and realizes that it is not working. So he says:

I will try and get it working. ITV-dental crisis (see:4:00-4:12)

The structure "get it working" reminded of a similar structure with similar meaning (causative): "get it to work."

Grammatically, they both seem to have a causative meaning, however I am not sure whether it would be correct if the speaker said:

"I will try and get it to work." instead of "......get it working."?

Improve this question
10
  • 1
    I think it's the same as I like working / to work (or love / prefer / ...). Basically, a stylistic choice that doesn't [normally?] affect meaning. In your example context, I'm quite sure initial I will try and is syntactically irrelevant. You could just as well compare the two imperatives "Get it to work!" and "Get it working!", or "I want it working / to work".
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Apr 25 at 10:13
  • 1
    I'm not American. 'try and' seems off to me. I thought the correct form would be "I will try to get it working."
    – HarryH
    Commented Apr 26 at 4:32
  • 3
    It's beginning to look like you've selected an incorrect answer.
    – Astralbee
    Commented Apr 26 at 9:08
  • @Astralbee The lemmings went over the cliff with this: "Get it to work" could sound like a one-off thing". That is not so. And I gave an example explaining why that is not so.
    – Lambie
    Commented Apr 26 at 15:12
  • 1
    @Lambie {"'Get it to work' could sound like a one-off thing". That is not so.} With that phrase on its own, you are correct here. But when it's placed in contrast with "get it working," Astralbee's distinction does appear.
    – Jed Schaaf
    Commented Apr 27 at 23:42

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
-1

A device (or motor or machine) is broken, so we say to the person with the broken device:

  • I'll get it working again. [because it is not working now]

OR

  • I'll get it to work. [because it doesn't work now]

Dialogue:
John: My computer seems to be on the blink. Can you get it to work again? Billy: Yes, I can get it working again quickly.

OR

John: My computer seems to be on the blink. Can you get it working again? Billy: Yes, I can get it to work again for you.

So, either can be used. There is not any essential difference between those two dialogues.

For example:
I have a new dishwasher and I push the on button and it does not start running, and I say to the repair person: Can you get it to work? He answers: Sure thing, I'll get it working in no time.

If a new machine, device, motor etc. has not worked when you turn it on the first time, you cannot get it to work. Here, we wouldn't usually say: get it working in our description of the problem.

However, the second one has an additional meaning.

to get something to work is not just about devices, motors, etc.

A relationship can be said to not work. For example, you've been disagreeing with someone about your relationship for a while, so you might say:

  • We should make an effort and get it [the relationship] to work again? OR
  • John doesn't think he can get his relationship with Ada to work again.
Improve this answer
4
  • 1
    There's little difference in a superficial sense, but the implications of each one are quite distinct. And the "relationship" "meaning" here is simply a different application of the same meaning; it is not an additional meaning.
    – Jed Schaaf
    Commented Apr 26 at 12:10
  • 1
    @user33113 Shorting the starter might get a car to work (simple present), and you can do that as many times as you want (repeatable). Getting the car working (present progressive/continuous), however, would involve replacing or rebuilding the starter. Superficially (on the face of it at this moment), they result in the same thing (the car is running now), but the implication of which one you say carries a different meaning concerning the future and ongoing state of the car.
    – Jed Schaaf
    Commented Apr 26 at 23:42
  • 1
    @user33113 Relationships would follow exactly the same pattern that I described with the car. You can most definitely say "we should get it working again". The situation would be if a couple had a good relationship, broke up, but then one (or both) of them desired to fix the issue(s) and get back together to have a good continuing relationship like before. "We should get it to work again" would be used if they had a good relationship at some point, it turned sour for some reason, and now they want to fix that issue (but more issues might still come up later that could split them again).
    – Jed Schaaf
    Commented Apr 26 at 23:55
  • 1
    "That user" is you, Lambie (note the ID), since apparently if I post your name itself with an @, it disappears from the beginning of the comment.
    – Jed Schaaf
    Commented Apr 27 at 2:08
12

"Get it working", using the continuous tense, better suggests that you will restore something to working order so that it will go on working, perhaps autonomously. We use 'working' to describe the state of something (ie "*in working order").

"Get it to work" could sound like a one-off thing - for example, if you had an old car that is difficult to start, you might say "I'll try to get it to start", meaning a one-time effort to make it start the one time. But, if you said "I'll get it starting properly" that would mean you were going to fix the starting issue once and for all.

This is not meant to be a firm distinction - both could be fine in some contexts, but I certainly find "get it working" to be a more idiomatic and accurate way to refer to fixing or repairing something so that it is in working order..

Improve this answer
10
  • 2
    I don't see this as a firm distinction, though. Get it to work seems fine to me for get it in working order.
    – Kate Bunting
    Commented Apr 25 at 12:11
  • 2
    @KateBunting I don't see it as a firm distinction either and have not claimed it to be such.
    – Astralbee
    Commented Apr 25 at 14:17
  • 2
    I'm not alone in thinking this: forum.wordreference.com/threads/…
    – Astralbee
    Commented Apr 25 at 14:18
  • 3
    @Lambie: I'm sorry you can't see the distinction between a change into a continuous state of being and a one-off action that can be repeated.
    – RLH
    Commented Apr 25 at 22:17
  • 7
    @Lambie: I can hire someone for a one-off job, and then the next week decide to hire them again for a one-off job. Even if I make a habit of doing so, it’s different from setting up a contract stating that I will hire them each week. Going back to the original point, there can be many (thousands or millions of) dollars difference between “I got the machine to work” [it did its task once and it produced a widget] or “I got the machine working” [it’s running and reliably/continuously producing widgets].
    – RLH
    Commented Apr 26 at 0:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .