Forum: Author Hangout

It means two and you said there were many more.

Actually it means a small, undefined number.

Your rewrite is good.

Actually it means a small, undefined number.

Only informally. If you use 'couple' in a story, it should mean two (unless, perhaps, a character says it).

AJ

I see this sort of thing quite often when editing stories for others. It usually indicates the author decided on one option then changed their mind halfway through writing it, and didn't proofread the final copy thoroughly enough.

AJ

I see this sort of thing quite often when editing stories for others. It usually indicates the author decided on one option then changed their mind halfway through writing it, and didn't proofread the final copy thoroughly enough.

I concur with your grammatical prognosis, awnlee, it's a botched fix.

Unless the story has something called a "more basket", though I have no idea what that would be.

The story of the famous detective, Moore Basket. His most famous case, classically referred to as Moore Basket's more baskets basket case.

The evidence suggests to me that "a couple more baskets" is not an Americanism, but rare, even within America, and probably only prevalent in a few regions within America.

Did that go wrong somewhere? There's nothing uncommon about saying 'a couple more' eg 'Harry Kane only needs to score a couple more goals to break his record for a season'. I think you had 'one more' for the road before you wrote it ;)

AJ

Maybe even a couple drinks.

Excellent - an example of where leaving out the 'of' creates ambiguity, another reason to avoid this bad practice ;)

AJ

IMO a couple in most cases means two and a few is more than two, but not a large quantity.

IMO a couple in most cases means two and a few is more than two, but not a large quantity.

Yes, those are the definitions (IMO).

But you can say "a couple of" informally when you're not referring to an exact number, but it's a small number.

I vaguely remember a very heated argument from another forum (usenet?) where the opposing views were about whether 'couple' and 'few' could include one, ie less than two.

I don't think any mortal injuries were sustained ;)

AJ

I don't think any mortal injuries were sustained ;)

That's only cause Usenet is too damn polite! 'D

Sixth-grade teacher Mrs. Higginbotham taught that "Couple" means two, "Few" means four. "Several" means seven.

Mrs Higginbotham's surname includes a couple of 'g's, a few vowels and almost several consonants ;)

AJ

Sixth-grade teacher Mrs. Higginbotham taught that "Couple" means two, "Few" means four. "Several" means seven.

And "four score and seven" means 87. There's a use for general terms, but just like the example "I just need a couple minutes to put on my makeup", there's a big difference between a general expression and outright lies (even if you're lying to yourself). But, even worse than outright lies, is being too damn lazy to give a damn about precise language. You expect assholes to lie, but you expect proper grammar from authors (at least in print, as some of us tend to post to forums without doing a proper grammar check first).

Excellent - an example of where leaving out the 'of' creates ambiguity, another reason to avoid this bad practice

Although my editors flag this type of use, I don't see the dropping of the "of" in "a couple drinks" harms the sentence in the slightest. Again, it's informal dialogue (this time, a forum dialogue), so it's allowed and it doesn't lead to any confusion.

But this is clearly a case where authors need to be conscious of the choices they make in choosing to use informal writing.

Although my editors flag this type of use, I don't see the dropping of the "of" in "a couple drinks" harms the sentence in the slightest.

IMO it's the equivalent of dropping case endings in Latin - it makes a story harder to read. But you're the author so it's your decision.

AJ

I think you had 'one more' for the road before you wrote it ;)

We should all be sure to stop for a couple more baskets before we get behind the wheel!

This is more of a usage question - how do most people use a phrase - rather than one of grammar.

The usage is an example of all that we've lost—even as we've gained a lot—by switching to informal narrators in fiction. Previously, the narrator spoke 'proper' English. Now, the narrator is treated as just another character, speaking as anyone else would. While I use this as a way of tailoring how the story is presented, more often, it just induces laziness and confusion in the narration instead of adding value to the story.

I'm not suggesting that we all return to formal story narration, just that we all, as authors, need to be aware of the potholes in our use of informal narrators.

There are a couple more files to read first.

Why is it permissible to say that but not, in your opinion, 'a couple more goals'?

Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary is remiss in not making clear that 'couple' only means more than two in informal circumstances eg "Honey, I'm powdering my nose. I'll be a couple more minutes."

In British English, the presumption is that couple means two, unless the context customarily allows otherwise.

AJ

Why is it permissible to say that but not, in your opinion, 'a couple more goals'?

First, a disclaimer. I don't know for sure, but…

"Couple" means two.

It's also used informally to mean "an indefinite small number." However, to do so requires the "of" after "couple."

"Couple" means two.

It's also used informally to mean "an indefinite small number." However, to do so requires the "of" after "couple."

I'm a bit more of a formalist in this regards. "Couple" always means exactly two, except when you're unsure of the exact number, and you use "couple" to imply 'close to two'. Using "a couple" as a synonym for "a few" or even for "another 30 minutes to finish applying my makeup" is clearly a misuse of language.

If you want to say "a few", then damn well say a few!

I can think of an example of that.

The Royal Mail used to deliver first class post the next day on most of the UK mainland, and the day after for second class post. So once upon a time, saying a letter would arrive in a couple of days specifically meant two and implied second class.

Nowadays, the length of time it takes the Royal Mail to deliver anything, even using its "guaranteed next day delivery" service, is rather volatile. We still say letters will arrive in a couple of days but now it means a few days.

AJ

AJ

I just checked dictionary.com

"a couple of" is an idiom meaning "more than two, but not many, of; a small number of; a few"

That would be better expressed: "a couple of" can be an idiom meaning "more than two, but not many, of; a small number of; a few"

It's very much a minority usage.

Whereas

"a couple" is the informal version.

The dictionary.com definition implies that if you say "a couple" without the "of", it's the informal way of saying: 'more than two, but not many, of; a small number of; a few'

I'm not sure the crypto-English fans who like to delete every "of" from their stories would be too happy to know dictionary.com thinks they're changing their meanings.

Dictionary.com's principal source is the Random House Unabridged Dictionary. Never heard of it! I think I'll stick with the OED.

AJ

Dictionary.com's principal source is the Random House Unabridged Dictionary. Never heard of it!

I went to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Pretty standard for Americans.
When I searched on "a couple of" it came back as an idiom.

I'm not sure the crypto-English fans who like to delete every "of" from their stories would be too happy to know dictionary.com thinks they're changing their meanings.

Removing the "of" does not change the meaning. According to the dictionary.com site, it's an informal way of saying the same thing. It sounds odd to my ear because, I guess, I'm used to the idiom.

I remove "of" when not needed. But that doesn't mean I remove all occurrences of "of." I also remove many "that"s. But in one of Crumbly's posts I suggested it needed a "that."

When I searched on "a couple of" it came back as an idiom.

Their idiom definition is 'two or a few' which is nonsense because if it meant two, it wouldn't be an idiom. Sloppy!

Removing the "of" does not change the meaning. According to the dictionary.com site, it's an informal way of saying the same thing.

According to the dictionary.com site, it's an informal way of saying the same thing as the idiom, where 'couple' means more than two. But dictionary.com does not also list it as an informal way of saying the same thing as the non-idiomatic meaning of 'a couple of' where couple means exactly two cf the Merriam-Webster usage example 'needed a couple of bookends'.

AJ

According to the dictionary.com site, it's an informal way of saying the same thing as the idiom, where 'couple' means more than two. But dictionary.com does not also list it as an informal way of saying the same thing as the non-idiomatic meaning of 'a couple of' where couple means exactly two cf the Merriam-Webster usage example 'needed a couple of bookends'.

"I spent a couple of bucks at the racetrack," obviously means they spent a bundle, but the speaker is clearly lying to both you and himself. However, you'd never refer to a harem as a 'couple' if they keep trading partners. At some point, it moves beyond the central couple and becomes an extended 'family'.

"Couple", when used to describe more than two, is often a diversion, meaning the speaker either doesn't know how many, or is unwilling to admit to something. That's hardly a valid definition of a term. It may be a legitimate usage, but it's a contrary usage, meaningful precisely because it contradicts the inherent meaning. In that case, it's a mistake to assume that the word therefore "means" whatever uses it's forced into. You use the contrary definitions in situations where they fit, NOT in every usage of the term!

Grammar Girl addresses when to leave out "that." https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/when-to-leave-out-that

I'm all for cutting unnecessary words, but I often like to keep my that if it helps the rhythm of the sentence. You'll have to judge whether using that in your particular sentence improves or hurts its flow.

Sometimes "That" Is Necessary

Here's an example of a sentence that leads the reader down the wrong path when you omit the word that:

Aardvark maintains Squiggly's yard is too big.

Without a that, the reader is initially led to believe that Aardvark maintains, as in mows, Squiggly's yard. If you add in a that, it's clear from the beginning that Aardvark just has an opinion.

I bet you're Chinese and naturally parse sentences from right to left ;)

I parse from left to right:

Aardvark (need more)
Aardvark maintains (need more)
Aardvark maintains Squiggly's (need more)
Aardvark maintains Squiggly's yard (makes sense, Aardvark mows the grass)
Aardvark maintains Squiggly's yard is (Aaarrrghh! Stop and rewind)

AJ

You're German - you usually put the verb at the end of the sentence IIRC so there's no danger of anything being modified by what follows.

Grammar girl found a very good example IMO, as my post shows.

With 'insists' instead of 'maintains', 'that' is less important because it doesn't adjust the meaning of what follows: "Aardvark insists Squiggly's yard" on its own does not make sense because you cannot insist a yard whereas you can maintain a yard.

AJ

IF "Aardvark maintains Squiggly's yard" still means Aardvark does yard work for Squiggly after you add "is too big" to it, the "is too big" makes no sense at all

Which I believe was Grammar Girl's point. When you get to the last part of the sentence, you have to stop and figure out what the sentence means. That's the ambiguity she's talking about. Simply adding the that solves the problem.

Total nonsense. You can't figure out what ANY sentence means without reading the complete sentence.

The problem is when you have to go back and re-read the sentence again to figure out what it means.

Grammar Girl tried to cause abiguity through her verb choice

You don't know that. She may have taken a live example and changed names to avoid shaming the author.

One meaning of 'maintain' is somewhat synonymous with 'insist' but the latter is much more forceful and aggressive. Authors shouldn't deny themselves the most appropriate word for the job in order to justify writing crypto-English.

AJ

You've just trashed a joke I've heard several times, which depends on German verbs normally being at the end of a sentence. It goes something like this:

A much-vaunted German scientist is giving a talk to a packed lecture theatre. He gets to the last sentence and it goes on and on before he finally stops. He expects the usual rapturous applause but instead is greeted with dead silence.

"Do you have any questions?" the scientist asks.

One of the audience timidly raises his hand to speak. "Please sir, what is the verb?"

AJ

I'm not good at recounting jokes and I left out the preamble about German verbs being at the end of sentences. My bad :(

AJ

Sometimes "That" Is Necessary

Here's an example of a sentence that leads the reader down the wrong path when you omit the word that:

Aardvark maintains Squiggly's yard is too big.

Without a that, the reader is initially led to believe that Aardvark maintains, as in mows, Squiggly's yard. If you add in a that, it's clear from the beginning that Aardvark just has an opinion.

Wow, I've just learnt some new jargon. Without the 'that', it qualifies as a Garden Path Sentence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_path_sentence

AJ

Wow, I've just learnt some new jargon. Without the 'that', it qualifies as a Garden Path

I would love to see an example of a Garden Path sentence used properly (i.e. by design as a style choice, rather than merely by accident). That would be better for understanding than a clearly badly written sentence with little regard for language to begin with (Ardvark and Squiggly? Really?).

I find them not uncommon on SOL, but I didn't know the fault had a name until now.

I've found a couple in the novel I'm beta-reading. I've noted them for the benefit of the author, but obviously I can't share them here.

AJ

I've found a couple in the novel I'm beta-reading. I've noted them for the benefit of the author, but obviously I can't share them here.

Ross was responding to my wondering about examples of the Garden-Path sentence used by design, rather than by accident. It sounds like what you found are the traditional accidental Garden Path variety, or rather, to invent new literary term, domesticated Garden Path sentences rather than wild Garden Path ones.

Aardvark maintains Squiggly's yard is too big.

A reader can figure out what the sentence means without the "that", but it takes a bit more effort. I agree it is easier to read with the "that".

The sentence has two verbs and "Squiggly's yard" has to be the object of "maintins" or the subject of "is". If you work the two out, one makes sense and the other doesn't.

But in one of Crumbly's posts I suggested it needed a "that."

You need a LOT of that's, but generally, nowhere as many as you think you do. The key is to try eliminating them, and learning what works and what doesn't. If you remove them, and your editors don't shove them back in, then those are cases where they weren't necessary. But, if it changes the meaning to take it out, it IS necessary.

This thread is about the phrase Rosita grabbed a couple of more baskets ....
If the quoted dictionary compilers really think that this phrase is good may they sink in the Marianna Trench.

I still contend that a couple as 2, and a couple as a few are two separate cases, and are handled independently. Fiction is not formal writing. According to you, you wouldn't be allowed to say "That's a cute couple" without tacking on "of people", which is awkward, at best.

"A couple of more" is wrong however you dice it, but I refuse to add "of" to every usage meaning "two" in dialogue because I don't know anyone who's that formal in their speech. Although, now that I know the distinction, I'll be more careful about when I use "couple" and "of" (i.e. IF there's any confusion, I'll add the "of").

you wouldn't be allowed to say "That's a cute couple" without tacking on "of people"

"Couple" in that sentence is a noun. It's a perfectly good sentence the way it is.

you wouldn't be allowed to say "That's a cute couple" without tacking on "of people", which is awkward, at best.

I agree with the basic concept you're trying to express, because you need to define what the That is in the sentence. However, it would be OK to say - They're a cute couple - because it implies two people to most people, and if you mean anything else it needs to be qualified before or after it.

As to the use of the word that - there are many situation where not using that will make the sentence disjointed, but there are far more situations where the use of formal English demands the use of the word that while it would totally disrupt a sentence in informal English.