# Cecil's Poor Grammar **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [March 19, 2001, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-poor-grammar/58625 "2001-03-19T21:53:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2001, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-poor-grammar/58625/1 "2001-03-19T21:53:01Z")
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… ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2001, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-poor-grammar/58625/2 "2001-03-19T22:11:13Z")
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) ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2001, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-poor-grammar/58625/3 "2001-03-19T22:32:42Z")
Interesting question. Here is what [http://www.dictionary.com](http://www.dictionary.com) has for the couple entry: (in reference to “a couple of”) > [@](#): > > Although the phrase a couple of has been well established in English since before the Renaissance, it has been criticized on several grounds. Grammarians used to insist that a couple of should be used only to refer to things closely linked to one another and so was improperly used in phrases such as a couple of years ago. This objection has not been heard in some time and was never well supported. Modern critics have sometimes maintained that a couple of is too inexact to be appropriate in formal writing. But the inexactitude of a couple of may serve a useful communicative purpose, suggesting that the writer is indifferent to the precise number of items involved. Thus the sentence She lives only a couple of miles away implies not only that the distance is short but that its exact measure is unimportant. Furthermore, a couple of is different from a few in that it does not imply that the relevant amount is relatively small. One might say admiringly of an exceptional center fielder that he can throw the ball a couple of hundred feet, but not, except ironically, a few hundred feet, which would suggest that such a throw was unremarkable. The usage should be considered unobjectionable on all levels of style. 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: > [@](#): > > adj. Informal > > Two or few: “Every couple years the urge strikes, to . . . haul off to a new site” (Garrison Keillor). “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. ---
**Author:** ![TheLoadedDog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@TheLoadedDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheLoadedDog)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2001, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-poor-grammar/58625/4 "2001-03-19T23:06:36Z")
“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! ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2001, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-poor-grammar/58625/5 "2001-03-19T23:09:41Z")
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.’” ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2001, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-poor-grammar/58625/6 "2001-03-19T23:23:56Z")
**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.) ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2001, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-poor-grammar/58625/7 "2001-03-19T23:33:07Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![D18](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@D18](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D18)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2001, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-poor-grammar/58625/8 "2001-03-19T23:44:08Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2001, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-poor-grammar/58625/9 "2001-03-19T23:51:20Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2001, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-poor-grammar/58625/10 "2001-03-19T23:54:57Z")
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.” ---
**Author:** ![TheLoadedDog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@TheLoadedDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheLoadedDog)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2001, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-poor-grammar/58625/11 "2001-03-19T23:58:34Z")
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”. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-poor-grammar/58625/12 "2001-03-20T00:01:40Z")
**javaman** wrote: > [@](#): > > I think the variant a couple x’s may have arisen from a couple of x’s when the latter was enunciated carelessly. I think you are probably right, **javaman**. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-poor-grammar/58625/13 "2001-03-20T00:06:30Z")
To put it simple, doesn’t it mean, “a couple, consisting of such and such?” ---
**Author:** ![TheLoadedDog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@TheLoadedDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheLoadedDog)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-poor-grammar/58625/14 "2001-03-20T00:19:29Z")
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"** : > [@](#): > > BTW, there are two “superhouses” in Baltimore that have a couple engines, a truck, some > medics, and the specialty units (like the heavy rescue). The other houses scattered through the > city may have as much as a truck, engine, and medic, or as little as one engine (!) **Knighted Vorpal Sword** ’s location on profile is Baltimore. The thot plickens… ---
**Author:** ![D18](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@D18](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D18)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-poor-grammar/58625/15 "2001-03-20T00:43:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spoke- \* > \*\*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.” \*\* 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. ---
**Author:** ![tsunamisurfer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a698b9/32.png) [@tsunamisurfer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tsunamisurfer)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-poor-grammar/58625/16 "2001-03-20T00:58:41Z")
The media have (not has) led this charge for about 5 years–interested, as always, in cramming more information into ever-smaller spaces. ---
**Author:** ![TheLoadedDog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@TheLoadedDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheLoadedDog)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-poor-grammar/58625/17 "2001-03-20T01:14:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tsunamisurfer \* > \*\*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… ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-poor-grammar/58625/18 "2001-03-20T01:59:27Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Primaflora](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/898d66/32.png) [@Primaflora](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Primaflora)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-poor-grammar/58625/19 "2001-03-20T08:48:12Z")
_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. ---
**Author:** ![Humble\_Servant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/47e85d/32.png) [@Humble\_Servant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Humble_Servant)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2001, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-poor-grammar/58625/20 "2001-03-20T16:17:23Z")
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? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecils-poor-grammar/58625.md?page=2)