I believed it to be Southern dialect.
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.
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.
Of course she bought a couple two tree apples. What else do apples grow on? 
And so does “couple.”
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.
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.”
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:
“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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 and here. 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.
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?”
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?
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
Why don’t we complain of the use of question marks for every sentence in spoken English?
The announcers on NPR even do it?
Is American “different from” or “different to” British?
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.