# Did I not get the memo about "couple of" ?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471
**Category:** In My Humble Opinion
**Created:** [March 9, 2016, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471 "2016-03-09T20:44:54Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Jennshark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jennshark)
#### Post date: [March 9, 2016, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/1 "2016-03-09T20:44:54Z")
Help! A secret change was agreed to by everyone but me, or I’ve just been writing/reading/saying this incorrectly all of my life . . .
In my brain: “Jane bought a couple **of** apples.”
New(?) way: “Jane bought a couple apples.”
???
---
### Author:  [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)
#### Post date: [March 9, 2016, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/2 "2016-03-09T20:53:49Z")
To the best of my knowledge, couple with the of is the formal construction and couple without is informal.
---
### Author:  [@Jennshark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jennshark)
#### Post date: [March 9, 2016, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/3 "2016-03-09T21:00:25Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#):
>
> To the best of my knowledge, couple with the of is the formal construction and couple without is informal.
I’m starting to see the “of” dropped in more formal writing (of late, a New Yorker article and a WSJ op-ed).
It just sounds _so_ freakin’ weird to me!
---
### Author:  [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)
#### Post date: [March 9, 2016, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/4 "2016-03-09T21:01:52Z")
I usually slur “couple of” so it sounds like “coupla.”
---
### Author:  [@Jennshark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jennshark)
#### Post date: [March 9, 2016, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/5 "2016-03-09T21:07:01Z")
> [@cochrane](#):
>
> I usually slur “couple of” so it sounds like “coupla.”
Yup! I also have “pairsa” shoes and socks and “paira” pants 🙂
---
### Author:  [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)
#### Post date: [March 9, 2016, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/6 "2016-03-09T21:11:09Z")
[Here’s a relatively recent langaugelog about it](http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=15264). You may not be wrong in noticing an uptick in the informal usage.
---
### Author:  [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)
#### Post date: [March 9, 2016, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/7 "2016-03-09T21:12:01Z")
“Jane bought a couple two tree apples.”
---
### Author:  [@araminty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/araminty)
#### Post date: [March 9, 2016, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/8 "2016-03-09T22:29:53Z")
I’ll add that this appears to be a US-only quirk of English. I notice it every time.
---
### Author:  [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)
#### Post date: [March 9, 2016, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/9 "2016-03-09T23:05:30Z")
I don’t know if it’s strictly a US regional thing, but [the Cambridge dictionary](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/couple) appears never to have heard of the dropped “of” except in the usual exception of preceding “more”, as in “a couple more examples”.
Just my opinion, but I would posit that dropping the “of” is just plain wrong and is becoming perhaps informally accepted for just the same reason that a lot of originally mistaken usage becomes _de facto_ correct if used persistently and long enough to make it into the style and usage manuals, much to the dismay of us annoying prescriptivists. But it’s probably either a lazy mistake that comes from slurring the spoken “of”, or from a misapplication of the “preceding more” rule.
To me “couple” in this context should obey the same usage form as “pair” or “set”. Thus I have a pair of pants, a set of dishes, and a couple of wineglasses. If anyone feels they have “a couple wineglasses”, then they’d better be prepared to have a pair pants and a set dishes, too.
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [March 9, 2016, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/10 "2016-03-09T23:47:07Z")
The hell?
---
### Author:  [@SCAdian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SCAdian)
#### Post date: [March 9, 2016, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/11 "2016-03-09T23:49:49Z")
> [@wolfpup](#):
>
> To me “couple” in this context should obey the same usage form as “pair” or “set”. Thus I have a pair of pants, a set of dishes, and a couple of wineglasses. If anyone feels they have “a couple wineglasses”, then they’d better be prepared to have a pair pants and a set dishes, too.
I have a dozen eggs and a couple bottles of whisky.
---
### Author:  [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2016, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/12 "2016-03-10T00:13:09Z")
> [@SCAdian](#):
>
> I have a dozen eggs and a couple bottles of whisky.
Then you have the makings of a drunken breakfast! 😉
But no. You have a dozen eggs and couple _ **of** _ bottles _ **of** _ whisky. In your example “dozen” functions as a part of speech called a [determiner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determiner), specifically a quantity or numeric determiner which is basically acting like an adjective. Same with determiners like “few” and “many”, or just plain numbers like “seven”. Whereas “couple” may seem similar but, just like “pair” or “set”, they’re strictly nouns. Notice, incidentally, the “of” that even you used between “bottles” and “whisky” for a similar reason.
So if you’re going to go around proclaiming that you have a couple bottles of whisky, why not be consistent a say that you have a couple bottles whisky? And then put on a pair pants and wash that set dishes! 🙂
---
### Author:  [@Ellecram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ellecram)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2016, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/13 "2016-03-10T00:52:39Z")
> [@cochrane](#):
>
> I usually slur “couple of” so it sounds like “coupla.”
I’m wondering if the spelling of this contacted word should be " couple o’ ".
Some contracted words are nearly unrecognizable at least audibly. The difficulty asserts itself when you have to transcribe them.
One phrase using a chopped up “of” in the form of "o’ " is the common English expression of time.
I never say that I have an appointment to get my shoe lint cleaned out at 5 of the clock. But that’s really what I’m saying in a abbreviated form.
---
### Author:  [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2016, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/14 "2016-03-10T03:32:17Z")
> [@wolfpup](#):
>
> Just my opinion, but I would posit that dropping the “of” is just plain wrong and is becoming perhaps informally accepted for just the same reason that a lot of originally mistaken usage becomes _de facto_ correct if used persistently and long enough to make it into the style and usage manuals, much to the dismay of us annoying prescriptivists. But it’s probably either a lazy mistake that comes from slurring the spoken “of”, or from a misapplication of the “preceding more” rule.
How do you tell when a language change is changing correctly?
---
### Author:  [@zombywoof](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zombywoof)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2016, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/15 "2016-03-10T03:33:49Z")
The OED recognizes the (colloquial) usage, with the first example cited dating from 1876:
> [@](#):
>
> b. (With of omitted) = couple of (cf. coupla n.; U.S. colloq.).
>
> 1876 C. H. Davis Polaris Exped. vi. 163 A couple pounds of which we used last night making scouse.
> 1914 Syracuse (N.Y.) Herald 1 May 8/3 St. Louis Louie and a couple other pitchmen wanted to commonwealth a Carnival company, Louie having a bankroll from selling 'scopes through the South.
> 1925 S. Lewis Martin Arrowsmith xvi. 188 A couple months in Italy.
> 1934 D. Hammett Thin Man xxii. 173 She touched me for a couple hundred to blow town.
> 1976 Fisher Strekfan’s Gloss. 2 in Amer. Speech (1978) 53 54 Fan-run cons range from minicons with as few as a couple dozen people, to giganti-cons with 10,000 or more.
> 2000 R. Barger et al. Hell’s Angel xiv. 242 They suggested I just go home for a couple days. Cool out and have a good time.
---
### Author:  [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2016, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/16 "2016-03-10T03:49:50Z")
> [@wolfpup](#):
>
> So if you’re going to go around proclaiming that you have a couple bottles of whisky, why not be consistent a say that you have a couple bottles whisky? And then put on a pair pants and wash that set dishes! 🙂
Because he’s speaking English, and the English language treats consistency more or less the way Superman treats Kryptonite.
---
### Author:  [@WOOKINPANUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WOOKINPANUB)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2016, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/17 "2016-03-10T14:59:32Z")
This was always a bone of contention between my ex and me. My default is to include “of” which he, being the the tremendous scholar (NOT!) always felt the need to mock. To my ears, a sentence such as “get off me” (yes, this is actually the sentence that started our fights about it 😛 ) sounds like it has something missing. Not wrong, per se, just non standard. In the same way “where you at” sounds not quite right, yet I hear many people say it. I believe it is a preposition, but then again, so is “off” so maybe it is redundant(?)
And now I’ve said it so many times in my head both ways have lost any meaning :smack:
---
### Author:  [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2016, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/18 "2016-03-10T19:01:52Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#):
>
> How do you tell when a language change is changing correctly?
I would argue that it’s not “correctness” that is the important criterion here, but usefulness. When a capable writer crafts a sentence in an unusual way that lends it grace and power, you won’t find me quibbling about its grammatical flaws. But the language changes that result from mistakes and ignorance are rarely useful. When a dumbass writes “_You should of told me that going to class was more important then smoking doobies with a couple friend’s, and I would of went_” it’s hard to see how this enriches the expressive powers of the language.
There was a long and acrimonious debate in GQ some time ago about the expression “I could care less”, a peculiar formulation that seems to have attracted a following of apologists trying to retroactively rationalize it as some form of wit or creative irony. I think it’s just an example of a syndrome that makes the language illogical and confusing, and probably owes more to careless corruption of the original than to any sort of wit. As to whether I care about it, I think it’s very clear that I could care less, which should leave no doubt at all about where I stand. 😉
> [@Miller](#):
>
> Because he’s speaking English, and the English language treats consistency more or less the way Superman treats Kryptonite.
True, and the above helps explain at least part of the reason it’s become that way.
---
### Author:  [@Doctor\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Jackson)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2016, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/19 "2016-03-10T20:07:24Z")
Terry Pratchett’s rephrasing of a James Nicoll quote sums it up nicely, especially the first sentence in this case:
> [@](#):
>
> The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.
---
### Author:  [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)
#### Post date: [March 10, 2016, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/20 "2016-03-10T20:29:19Z")
Hah! Nice quote, and I agree. My argument isn’t about maintaining purity, however, since that horse left the barn long before the Norman conquest. The worthy objective is to keep this old cribhouse whore in as good a state of health as we can manage.
ETA: And “purity” isn’t the same as some semblance of logic and consistency. ISTM that one example of a linguistic culture that pursues purity is French, and that hasn’t done the language any favors. English is far richer and more expressive. I don’t dispute or oppose any of that!
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471.md?page=2)