Or is it the done thing where he comes from…
I have been reading the SD archives for the past hour or so and have noticed time and time again that where there should be an ‘of’ there is nothing. For example “A couple sources say” should be “A couple of sources say”
Sarcasm asside - I know that this is a quite commonly done thing in America (it is never done in the UK to my knowledge, even by thickos). But until now I assumed it was done only by people of medium to low intelligence. It ‘sounds’ dumb to me when poeple miss the ‘of’ out in that way. Isn’t Cecil supposed to be a genius? (or at least a know-it-all) Shouldn’t he at least print correct grammar? or am I incorrect in assuming it is a dumb person’s trick. Is it in fact a widely done thing?
The very next article I read after posting the OP had this -
On reflection my subject line could have been better - “Conspiracy: Someone has removed ‘of’ from Cecil’s brain!”
This reminds me of a similar tendancy (this one I do see in the UK a lot) that is to ‘of’ where ‘have’ should be - like “could of been better” My supervisor and boss at work do that regularly in e-mails. sometimes I feel like I live in a world of apes.
I cannot stand ‘could of’. I just want to smack people sometimes.
One’s a commonly accepted colloquial usage, the other’s a grave grammatical error. Surely you’re not accusing Cecil of the latter.
I quite like that American usage. Saying “a couple” instead of “a couple of” starts to make more sense when we consider that “a few” without the “of” is acceptable everywhere, depending on context.
Cecil spells “arse” properly, too. 
I think “a couple sources say” is acceptable. Thinking back to my Latin I think it has something to do with the different forms of the genitive so “a couple sources say” restricts the refererence specifically to those sources that do say where as “a couple of sources say” refers to a few out of a wide number of sources that were checked. Or similarly (I think) saying “many men died” means just that whereas “many of the men died” means many of a certain unit or army died.
I did not mean to acuse cecil of doing the “could of” thing. I was simply reminded of that trend in other people by my OP.
And, TripingJimiThing. I disagree (sorry). I think “a couple of men” means more like “a pair of men” and not “a couple of the men” if it meant “a couple of the men” then there would be a ‘the’. the lack of a ‘the’ makes it not mean that.
In the hope of making the point I will sound a bit more computery - “A couple of men” is more like “a couple of objects belonging to the type ‘men’” than “a couple from the list of objects of type ‘men’”
I probably made things more confused. Anyway, even if it is commonly accepted. To my articulate-speech-loving ears it sounds dumb and/or lazy to miss the ‘of’ out in that way.
That’s wierd. My last message seemed to slip through without the SDMB noticing it. It did not update this thread’s age, or last poster or anything.
Well hopefully this one will.