In many of Cecil’s old columns, he uses phrases like “a couple times” or “a couple things.” This used to crop up a lot in his writing, and it always bugged me. Shouldn’t the phrasing be “a couple of times” and “a couple of things?” Is it accepted to leave out the preposition?
Grammarians, your thoughts?
I notice you don’t see this signature stylistic quirk so much lately. Hmmm…
I am not at all sure whether or not the preposition is necessary. I was under the (perhaps misinformed) impression that “couple” is used similarly to “few.” In both cases, substituting “few” for “couple” leads to a perfectly satisfactory phrase without the preposition. Perhaps the preposition is unnecessary? (WAG)
Interesting question.
Here is what http://www.dictionary.com has for the couple entry: (in reference to “a couple of”)
AND, since that is remarking more on the use of the phrase itself rather than the “couple of” versus “couple” question, the website also has this:
“Couple of” is also tagged as “informal.”
In other words, the answer is that it seems both forms are acceptable.
It seems that both are relegated to informal writing, so I don’t think style books would advocate the use of either. I no longer have my AP style book or Strunk & White, so I’m curious to hear what they have to say about the matter.
“A couple of” is always used in Australia. I think the British usage is the same. I’ve always thought dropping the “of” is American usage (but by no means universal in that country - got a feeling you won’t hear it in Boston! My guess is it’s a Chicago or NYC thing, though I’ll welcome comments from Americans willing to prove me wrong). I must say, that whilst Australians have an at best ambivalent attitude towards “Americanisms”, dropping the “of” is a usage I quite like. I won’t mind if it is picked up here, though I have yet to notice it. The usual scenario in Australia is that US slang is adopted quite readily, but US spelling is resisted.
The weird thing about the usage in question is that it seems to be an exception. I have noticed (again I may be proved wrong) that although Americans seem to like simplifying the language in ways like changing “colour” to color", you guys (Bugger. US word alert. I meant -youse blokes 
) seem to like adding prepositions. I’ve often heard Americans say things like “I got off of the train”, or using “in back of”, not “behind”. I admit this makes every bit as much sense as saying “in front of”, but it sounds odd to Australian ears.
I’ve had a couple friendly arguments in the BBQ Pit over US / Aussie English, but I must say that I enjoy the differences, and as has been pointed out many times in word-related threads, the last thing we want is to regulate our language the way the French regulate theirs. The global nature of English is its strength. From the slow, sparse twang of the Aussie outback, to the drawl of Alabama, to the rhyming slang of a London cab driver - it’s all good!
It’s not listed at all in my copy of Strunk & white.
The AP Style book says “The ‘of’ is necessary. Never use ‘a couple tomatoes’ or a similar phrase. The phrase takes a plural verb in constructions such as: ‘a couple of tomatoes were stolen.’”
TheLoadedDog-
I am from Georgia, and in this part of the country, I have always seen and heard “couple of.” Of course, we Southerners aren’t exactly known for our mastery of grammar. 
I suspect Cecil’s usage may be a Midwestern quirk, a suspicion reinforced by the fact that Garrison Keillor seems to have the same quirk. (See pulykamell’s post.)
LoadedDog - Most Chicagoans I know (including myself) tend to use “couple of” pronounced as “couple-uh” It’s nice, cuz you can just stretch out that last syllable while you’re thinking of what you’re trying to say. “So de udder day I went up-ta-da-end-uh-da shtreet and i saw a couple-uhhhh whatchamacallits, uh, …” 
Anyhow, kunilou - thanks for the info. I suspected it was “couple of.” One of the rare instances AP seems to prefer the addition of a word. Obviously they’re scanning “couple” as a noun.
The way it was explained to me by a teacher once was just like dozen = 12 (except in bakeshops), couple = 2, and you’d never say “a dozen of eggs”. However, you would say, “a dozen of those”. He said use couple the same way. Now, then, how about myriad?
D18
I think the variant *a couple x’s * may have arisen from a couple of x’s when the latter was enunciated carelessly. Sometimes in print we see a coupla x’s, when the writer is trying to indicate that the speaker is intoxicated, or just a careless speaker. From a coupla it’s no great leap to return to a couple, only this time it’s a back formation, so to speak.
German has the word koppel which is related to couple, but means several things strung or leashed to gether, like a group of horses being led. WAG: In German,
group nouns originally took the genitive (i.e. possessive) case, which implied the of: eine Koppel Pferde=a line of horses. However, the genitive plural is no longer marked on the noun itself in German; it looks just the same as the nominative or accusative plural. So Germans probably don’t know if those are nominative or genitive Pferde which are being led around, but they don’t need to because it makes no difference anyway.
I’m not sure I buy your teacher’s logic, D18.
“Pair” = 2 in the same way that “dozen” = 12, yet you would never say “I need a pair eggs.”
Thanks for the info Spoke amd Pulykamell. I can relate the the Chicago usage, because now that I think about it, here it usually comes out as “cupla”, as in “Gizza cupla chooks, willya mate?”, which loosely translates as “I say, my good fellow. I am desirous of purchasing two of your finest chickens, and would be much obliged if said transaction could be completed without delay”.
javaman wrote:
I think you are probably right, javaman.
To put it simple, doesn’t it mean, “a couple, consisting of such and such?”
I had only been gone from this thread a few minutes when I found this post fron Knighted Vorpal Sword in the current thread “Four Alarm” Fires":
Knighted Vorpal Sword’s location on profile is Baltimore.
The thot plickens…
No, you’re right, it isn’t logical. Thinking about it some more, I think his point was to use the unambiguous example of dozen to help remember how - in his view - to use “of” with couple.
The media have (not has) led this charge for about 5 years–interested, as always, in cramming more information into ever-smaller spaces.
Bit of a hijack, but I agree totally. “Media has” simply isn’t correct. In recent years, it has also become commonplace for journalists to attribute plural status to any large entity, giving us: “France have beaten Italy”, and “Coca Cola have announced huge profits”.
However, I think we are clinging to a usage which is becoming old fashioned. Maybe somebody can tell me the origin of this supposedly true telephone conversation:
Pedantic newspaper editor: “Are there any news?”
Smartypants rookie reporter: “No sir. Not a single new.”
The language marches on…
More than a bit of a hijack, what about “for free”? I see this everywhere now. You can get something for free. What purpose does the “for” serve?
The Australian Style Manual seems to see ‘couple of’ as so self evident that it is not mentioned at all. Fowler’s Modern English Usage is silent on the matter too.
I was taught this past week the use of plural and singular forms of the verb with companies such as Coca Cola and while the wrong usage may be creeping in, it remains wrong.
The ‘for’ in ‘for free’ IMO is technically correct. If you put in an amount you would need the ‘for’ so the free behaves in the same way. I am open to argument though.
I think Cecil tries to mimic spoken language in many of his columns (“eat shit and die” being the ne plus ultra example of this–will someone parse that phrase grammatically for me please?). It’s like this guys: if we’re gonna convey the sense of immediacy that goes with verbal word play and inflexion, we gotta write the way they do on message boards. Doesn’t mean that we don’t know formal written grammar, just means that we’re trying to make the written word sound and feel like it does when we speak it.
My couple cents, 'mkay?