# Did I not get the memo about "couple of" ? **URL:** \ **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:** 2
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2016, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/21 "2016-03-10T20:42:03Z")
I believed it to be Southern dialect. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/22 "2016-03-11T01:42:12Z")
It’s not southern (substitute whatever substandard dialect you want to put down). I grew up in Philadelphia and I use them absoutely interchangeaby. It follows that they are equally correct. In fact this thread is the first time I was aware that some considered it “wrong”. It’s a living language, get used to it. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/23 "2016-03-11T01:50:33Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > It’s a living language, get used to it. That’s a truism, not a policy. Living things are wonderful things to behold, but they fare differently in the fresh air and sunshine than they do when they fall into a pool of molten lava. As I said above in response to **Doctor Jackson** ’s wonderful quote, the defenders of the English language are just trying to keep the old cribhouse whore in relatively good health. ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/24 "2016-03-11T02:26:24Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > “Jane bought a couple two tree apples.” Of course she bought a couple two tree apples. What else do apples grow on? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![SCAdian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scadian/32/3292_2.png) [@SCAdian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SCAdian)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/25 "2016-03-11T02:28:43Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > 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. And so does “couple.” ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/26 "2016-03-11T02:35:46Z")
> [@Ellecram](#): > > 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. Except I don’t say “a couple o’.” I say “a coupla,” so that’s how I write it. Or, I guess “a coupl’a” could work, too. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/27 "2016-03-11T03:39:42Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > 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. I don’t see how it degrades it, either. “English is a living language” means that common modes of expression are constantly in flux. There’s a tendency among descriptivists to over-romanticize this feature of language, but really, it’s like assigning a moral value to the motions of the tides. How people talk will change, and there’s absolutely nothing you nor I can do to change it. That being said, I take no small pleasure in the knowledge that the way the “language defenders” talk today, would get them branded as vulgar cretins by their fellow defenders of a century previous. And those defenders would likewise be disdained by their fellows from the earlier century, and so on and so on back to the second time someone set stylus to a clay tablet, and the first guy said, “No, you’re doing it wrong.” ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/28 "2016-03-11T05:46:04Z")
This is one of those things that drives me crazy. I understand that it’s sort of pointless getting worked up about these little usage issues, but some of them grate on me more than others, and this is one of the former. It might be because i’m Australian, and despite having lived in the US for over 15 years, i still tend more towards British/Australian usage in many areas. The “couple of” construction was the only one i had ever heard until i moved to America. It’s worth noting, though, that the most well-respected American usage guide, Bryan Garner’s _Dictionary of Modern American Usage_, also discourages omitting the “of” in such cases. Garner says: > [@](#): > > Omitting the _of_ is slipshod in such a construction…In other words, using _couple_ not as a noun but as an adjective is poor usage: instead of _a couple days ago_, say _a couple of days ago_. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/29 "2016-03-11T06:44:27Z")
> [@WOOKINPANUB](#): > > 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. “Get off of me” seems very wrong to me. I say “get off me” which I believe is the British way, and in my mind, if there should be anything it ought to be “get off _from_ me”. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/30 "2016-03-11T07:12:27Z")
> [@zombywoof](#): > > 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. In the second one, “couple” modifies “other”: to say “a couple of other pitchmen” sounds awkward to my ear; same with the fifth example, “couple” modifies “dozen”. In the fourth one, Hammett-speak notwithstanding, the phrase is elliptical, leaving out “dollars”, so again, “couple” modifies “hundred”: “a couple of hundred dollars” is just not correct. In the other cases, spoken American can be so slippery that the “of” disappears into little more than a slight movement of the tongue. Not even as distinct as “coupla”, barely even audible. But it should probably still be expressed in writing unless one is rendering quotes with Joycian precision. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/31 "2016-03-11T08:47:12Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > In the second one, “couple” modifies “other”: to say “a couple of other pitchmen” sounds awkward to my ear; same with the fifth example, “couple” modifies “dozen”. > > In the fourth one, Hammett-speak notwithstanding, the phrase is elliptical, leaving out “dollars”, so again, “couple” modifies “hundred”: “a couple of hundred dollars” is just not correct. You’re both stating the obvious and begging the question. You say that, in some of the cases listed, “a couple of” sounds awkward to your ear. But using “couple” without “of” sounds awkward to most speakers of British English. The fact that something sounds awkward to you doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It’s clear that “couple” modifies “other” and “dozen” and hundred" in those sentences. Anyone who can read can see that. The question is: should it? That is, should it be used as an adjective instead of a noun? Garner’s _Dictionary of Modern American Usage_ says no, and Fowler’s _Modern English Usage_ says that, while the usage without “of” is “well established in American English,” it “sounds alien to British ears.” When you say that “‘a couple of hundred dollars’ is just not correct,” it is you who are just not correct or, at best, are begging the question: How do we decide which usage is correct? The usage guides prefer to use couple as a noun, along with the preposition “of,” so if you’re going to assert that this usage is just not correct, then you would benefit from providing some evidence. Otherwise, all you’re offering is a preference, just like anyone else. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/32 "2016-03-11T12:30:40Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > “Get off of me” seems very wrong to me. I say “get off me” which I believe is the British way, and in my mind, if there should be anything it ought to be “get off _from_ me”. Well, the noted Brit Mick Jagger did sing “get off of my cloud” (really, “offa,” but clearly two syllables – and definitely written with the “of”) – but that was in 1965, half a century ago. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/33 "2016-03-11T15:26:17Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I don’t see how it degrades it, either. “English is a living language” means that common modes of expression are constantly in flux. There’s a tendency among descriptivists to over-romanticize this feature of language, but really, it’s like assigning a moral value to the motions of the tides. How people talk will change, and there’s absolutely nothing you nor I can do to change it. Sure it degrades it – incorrect usage, grammar, and spelling degrade communication because these errors impair comprehension, which is the only reason we have these rules at all. And it’s also the reason that a skilled writer who knows what he’s doing should not just be forgiven but praised when he breaks the rules in a masterful way that aids communication and impact. But for most of us, most of the time, the rules of language are foundationally important to good communication. It’s true that language is always evolving but I think we have a duty to nudge it in directions that make sense in terms of consistency and its fundamental purpose of communication, and discourage random, purposeless variations that are nothing but mistakes born of ignorance. > [@Miller](#): > > That being said, I take no small pleasure in the knowledge that the way the “language defenders” talk today, would get them branded as vulgar cretins by their fellow defenders of a century previous. And those defenders would likewise be disdained by their fellows from the earlier century, and so on and so on back to the second time someone set stylus to a clay tablet, and the first guy said, “No, you’re doing it wrong.” I disagree. Today’s English would be strange in many ways to people of several hundred years ago, but they would probably be amazed at its relative precision and consistency compared to the language of their own day, a fact attributable largely to much higher levels of education and modern communications. One of the characteristics of old texts such as the founding documents is sloppy and inconsistent use of language and punctuation, as inspirational as some of the language may be. Much has been made by both sides of the rather odd use of commas in the Second Amendment, for instance – you can find discussions [here](http://www.guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html) and [here](http://www.businessinsider.com/the-comma-in-the-second-amendment-2013-8). There is actually a credible body of evidence that commas like these were basically sprinkled around like decoration, and both sides of the gun debate have used this fact to advance their preferred interpretation of its true intent. Today we have much firmer rules about punctuation. ---
**Author:** ![WOOKINPANUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wookinpanub/32/132_2.png) [@WOOKINPANUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WOOKINPANUB)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/34 "2016-03-11T16:17:08Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > “Get off of me” seems very wrong to me. I say “get off me” which I believe is the British way, and in my mind, if there should be anything it ought to be “get off _from_ me”. Well he is British (though I think some here are saying the Brit way is the opposite, if I read correctly). I think either way sounds basically ok, the former is just what comes naturally to me. “Get off from me” would make me go “huh?” ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/35 "2016-03-11T16:30:24Z")
The usage “off of” seems like another one that is increasingly common these days. One of the most common corrections i make on my students’ paper is their habit of writing that something is “based off of” something else. No, it’s “based on” it. No longer do people “work off a plan”; they “work off of a plan.” They make profits “off of” their investments. Merchants thrived “off of” the sales they made. People made money “off of” the housing boom. Blockbusters would buy houses “off of” whites. People made a good living “off of” well-paid union labor. More people were living “off of” welfare. These are just a few examples from papers i received from (or, maybe more correctly, off of) my students last semester. Did the words “from” and “on” and plain old “off” (without the of) disappear from the language while i wasn’t looking? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/36 "2016-03-11T16:51:57Z")
Just be grateful they’re not using “offa”, as in “get offa me”. It seems to be a common habit to sprinkle around “of” more or less at random, like decoration, just about everywhere except where it’s needed. Thus, “I would of told him to get off of me, but he done skedaddled when a couple teacher’s came along.” ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/37 "2016-03-11T18:11:13Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Sure it degrades it – incorrect usage, grammar, and spelling degrade communication because these errors impair comprehension, which is the only reason we have these rules at all. And it’s also the reason that a skilled writer who knows what he’s doing should not just be forgiven but praised when he breaks the rules in a masterful way that aids communication and impact. But for most of us, most of the time, the rules of language are foundationally important to good communication. And was the meaning in the “bad” sentence you provided unclear? I had no trouble understanding it. Also, a “skilled writer” who breaks rules “in a masterful way” is purely objective. My “masterful breaking of the rules,” could very easily (likely, even) be your “dumbass who can’t speak well.” > [@](#): > > It’s true that language is always evolving but I think we have a duty to nudge it in directions that make sense in terms of consistency and its fundamental purpose of communication, and discourage random, purposeless variations that are nothing but mistakes born of ignorance. We have no such duty, because no such nudging is possible. Language evolves as it will. You can no more “nudge” it than you can nudge the motion of the tides, or the course of stars across the sky. > [@](#): > > I disagree. Today’s English would be strange in many ways to people of several hundred years ago, but they would probably be amazed at its relative precision and consistency compared to the language of their own day, a fact attributable largely to much higher levels of education and modern communications. Oh, I agree language is much better now, then it was in the past. My point is that, when it changed from what it was in the past, to what it was now, there was someone exactly like you, bemoaning the decay of the language and how nobody will be able to understand anyone any more. Because those people have been around almost as long as language has been around. And they’ve always been wrong in their dire predictions. Just like you will be. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/38 "2016-03-11T18:54:12Z")
Why don’t we complain of the use of question marks for every sentence in spoken English? The announcers on NPR even do it? ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/39 "2016-03-11T19:09:25Z")
Is American “different from” or “different to” British? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471/40 "2016-03-11T19:19:46Z")
> [@Jennshark](#): > > Yup! I also have “pairsa” shoes and socks and “paira” pants 🙂 Yep, me too. To my American ear “couple of” sound awkward, most of the time. I think the reason is that “a couple” = 2, and we don’t say "I bought 2 of apples, I say “I bought a couple apples”. However, I would say “I bought 2 of those” and so I would also say “I bought a couple of those”. Or, more likely: I bought towa those, and a coupla those. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-i-not-get-the-memo-about-couple-of/748471.md?page=3)