Forum: Editors/Reviewers Hangout

In informal U.S. English, a couple can be used like a couple of

Informal US English.

Informal US English.

I'm German; every version of English is informal to me.

Merriam-Webster(online) lists 'a couple' omitting the 'of' as informal usage.

Thanks. So it is US and still informal (this week). I suspect it will be mainstream very shortly. I pine for the language.

Thanks. So it is US and still informal (this week). I suspect it will be mainstream very shortly. I pine for the language.

All languages everywhere change over time. Get over it.

Get over it.

No.

No.

Suit yourself, but it's a war you can never win.

a war you can never win

I don't have to fight it just because I disagree with it. Unconventional, I know.

I don't have to fight it just because I disagree with it.

Complaining about it in the forums is trying to fight it.

Complaining about it in the forums is trying to fight it

I think you must live is a predominantly combative place.

Where is the complaint? I was simply asking a question, and later expressing sadness.

Are you suggesting that anyone that doesn't agree with something is automatically fighting against it? That is a bit binary. It might also explain a very aggressive attitude, if true.

and later expressing sadness.

You might as well be sad about the sun setting or the tide rising.

Are you suggesting that anyone that doesn't agree with something is automatically fighting against it?

No, but you can not agree with something without putting time and energy into that disagreement.

Someone is always complaining about some aspect of change in language in this forum. It gets tiresome.

Every language changes over time, even French, despite the French government fighting it tooth and nail.

Changes to language are as inevitable and unstoppable as the rising and setting of the sun or the rising and falling of the tides.

Absent extraordinary circumstances being unhappy/sad/angry about it isn't worth the effort. Disagreement with it beyond ignoring it isn't worth the effort.

Disagreement with it beyond ignoring it isn't worth the effort.

There are despots all over the world, past and present, that would laud that philosophy mightily.

I will maintain my view that not all change is good or inevitable, and 'get over it' is not a command I will accede to any time soon. I'm not yet at the 'anything for a quiet life' stage.

And I wasn't complaining …

There are despots all over the world, past and present, that would laud that philosophy mightily.

It's not a philosophy that applies to them, so no, if they understood it at all, they wouldn't.

I will maintain my view that not all change is good or inevitable

I completely agree with this.

However, change in general, while neither good nor bad, is inevitable. And with changes in language, by the time people start really complaining, typically, the change at issue has already built up enough momentum to be unstoppable.

And I wasn't complaining …

As long as you seem to feel the need to publicly express a value judgements about this particular change, I am not going to believe that. And yes, being sad over it is a value judgement.

And yes, being sad over it is a value judgement.

An interesting point of view. So if I am sad over somebody's passing, that is somehow a value judgement about them, and not their death? Can I not be sad about mortality in general? I am pining for the language, not the changing of the particular usage.

So if I am sad over somebody's passing, that is somehow a value judgement about them, and not their death?

1, I don't think that's directly comparable.

2. To a degree yes, you are sad because you valued their presence in your life. You could also be making a value judgement over the circumstances of their death.

I am pining for the language, not the changing of the particular usage.

A pointless waste of emotional energy.

A pointless waste of emotional energy.

Oh dear. Nothing is worth preserving. Clarity and form have no value. I would hate to be in your world, although it does sound simple and easy.

Nothing is worth preserving. Clarity and form have no value.

Some things are worth preserving, but not everything is.

Clarity has value. Form does not.

I would hate to be in your world, although it does sound simple and easy.

As opposed to your world, where everything must be preserved, no matter the cost?

As opposed to your world, where everything must be preserved, no matter the cost?

Good one :-) That's really humorous, in a bizarre way.

That's really humorous, in a bizarre way.

-- and that also reminds me of Monty Python

Given the value 'of' in helping readers discern the meaning of a usage of 'couple', I think clarity is justification for retaining the 'of'.

Maybe in some cases, but certainly not in all cases.

Personally I don't see any lack of clarity in "a couple hundred widgets" that would in any way be addressed by the addition of "of" between couple and hundred.

Personally I don't see any lack of clarity in "a couple hundred widgets" that would in any way be addressed by the addition of "of" between couple and hundred.

Agreed, although the statement remains slightly ambiguous, the inclusion of the word "of" into the sentence doesn't make it less so.

And would that be "a couple of hundred widgets" or "a couple hundred of widgets" in that case? =P

Personally I don't see any lack of clarity in "a couple hundred widgets" that would in any way be addressed by the addition of "of" between couple and hundred.

And therein lies the problem. Try looking at it from others' perspectives.

One recommendation was to get a third party to read the story aloud from cold.

Maybe instead use a text-to-speech programme; I find I often read the missing word so if I was reading aloud, I would insert it without realising. A computer, however, does exactly what you tell it to, and wouldn't.

couple of (or couple've)

And there is another whole thing :-) but reversed. How usages like 'should have' shortened to 'should've' have been mondegreened into 'should of'.

[I know mondegreened isn't a word and mondegreen isn't even a verb, but it replaces a bunch of words so I used it anyway. Everybody else seems to be doing it.]

How about 'amalgamizing'? 'D

Yeah. That's a gooden. My favourite, 'trendify', is thankfully still listed as informal. Sadly, amalgamize/ed/ing is no longer 'informal'. Sigh …

amalgamize/ed/ing

The amal game eyes are watching you.

amal game eyes

Are those of a dentist?

More like a geologist with that one.

Some of the people around here would probably prefer their methods too, at least until they decide to use a hammer.

Most of what they do "in the field" consists of biting, scratching, and sniffing. :)

I know mondegreened isn't a word and mondegreen isn't even a verb, but it replaces a bunch of words so I used it anyway. Everybody else seems to be doing it.]

Everybody does do that. The rule is you may use any noun as if it was a verb, and they are always conjugated as regular verbs.

In that case, I'm doorstopping this conversation! 'D

Are you presidentising again? Careful or you will get Trumped.

Everybody does do that. The rule is you may use any noun as if it was a verb, and they are always conjugated as regular verbs.

NOT everybody! The wire services have a stylebook rule that goes something like this: "Turn nouns into verbs with the same enthusiasm you would use in seeking a reduction in salary."

NOT everybody! The wire services have a stylebook rule that goes something like this: "Turn nouns into verbs with the same enthusiasm you would use in seeking a reduction in salary."

Did you google that? Or do you insist I must ask, "Did you use Google to look that up?":-)

I cannot agree it should never be done. I only said it "may" be done and I'd agree there are many times when it's better not to.

In fact, I overstated the real situation. There are many nouns that may be freely used as if they were verbs, but it doesn't work with all nouns. As far as I can tell, nouns that already end with some suffix sometimes, perhaps always, will need another suffix to create a verb. The result can get pretty ugly. However, I think it's always grammatically acceptable to treat nouns which only consist of a root word as if they are verbs.

My favorite is 'boned', although 'to bone' actually is a verb. Quite confusing. Maybe some native English speakers can enlighten me whether 'to bone' someone with the meaning of 'to fuck' is derived from the noun 'bone' or another meaning of the verb 'to bone'.

That's an odd one, because I suspect that 'deboned' came first...

Nope. 'Deboned' is a relatively recent addition to the English word pool, and probably only the US English vocabulary at that. According to Merriam-Webster, its first known use is from 1944, whereas the Cambridge Dictionary doesn't list the term at all.

Its recent origins are probably testament to the poor quality of contemporary school education, with millennials too poorly educated to have the word 'fillet' in their vocabularies ;)

Your unruly youngsters might learn the importance of filleting when you give them some fish and chips with fishbones ... or something else they'd like to bone.

Maybe some native English speakers can enlighten me whether 'to bone' someone with the meaning of 'to fuck' is derived from the noun 'bone' or another meaning of the verb 'to bone'.

A slang term for "erection" is "boner", although you don't hear it used much these days.
So you use your boner to bone.

So you use your boner to bone.

That's what I thought. So 'to bone' with the meaning of fucking has nothing to do with the verb 'to bone', right? Somehow that still sounds weird.

So 'to bone' with the meaning of fucking has nothing to do with the verb 'to bone', right?

Correct.
The first is about sex, the second about food preparation.
In the first the bone is going in (and out, and in & out..), in the second the bones are being removed.

So 'to bone' with the meaning of fucking has nothing to do with the verb 'to bone', right? Somehow that still sounds weird.

And then there's the verb 'to t-bone' ;)

AJ

root word

In the Cheer: "Root, Root, Root for the home team" is Root a root word? "If they don't win its a shame. Take me out to the ball game..."

Wouldn't it be interesting to find that ancient texts mean the opposite of what the translators think they mean because of that?

It's a possibility, but the types of people who translate ancient texts study not just languages as a static things, but they explicitly study the ways that languages change over time.

Wouldn't it be interesting to find that ancient texts mean the opposite of what the translators think they mean because of that?

Would that explain how a woman screaming, "get away from me you misogynistic bastard" gets translated into "fuck me now" by Harvey Weinstein ??

Wouldn't it be interesting to find that ancient texts mean the opposite of what the translators think they mean because of that?

Something close to that is already happening in some cases with a certain book. There were things which were implied or otherwise left to inference using "common knowledge" of the time. Knowledge of which isn't particularly common today, or 400 years ago in many cases, for that matter.

For example, when your MC goes into town to do something, how exactly did they get there? What kind of ground did they traverse? What were they (likely to be) wearing?

Maybe so, but don't the French put you in front of a firing squad if you "violate" their language?

Maybe so, but don't the French put you in front of a firing squad if you "violate" their language?

That sounds worse than it is. The French never hit anything.

I suspect not. There are too many instances where omitting the 'of' introduces ambiguity

I would agree, except I have seen little evidence that ambiguity is a deterrent to informal usages. The understanding seems to be assumed.

Merriam-Webster(online) lists 'a couple' omitting the 'of' as informal usage.

Merriam-Webster:

Definition of a couple

informal

1 : two or a few (of something)

Can you give me a couple more examples?

This one costs a couple dollars less than that one.

Pretty much, this is one of those weird cases where informal speech takes the slightly longer way of expressing things. (Although it is still shorter than the more formal way of expressing it)

Instead of simply saying "two" they instead say "a couple." "Of" or "a/ah" only is appended if the speaker decides to clarify what there was two of.

Of course, informal usage can add a curveball into the mix, as it is not terribly unusual for someone to switch to "a couple" instead of "two" because they're not sure of the actual count. It might be one(very unlikely), it probably is two, but it could be three, or more.

Generally speaking though, if the count is (strongly) suspected(by the speaker) of being three or more, it a becomes "a few" instead.

Basically "a couple" being used by certain English speakers in present usage could indicate they're speaking imprecisely as it regards to the accuracy or reliability of the count itself.

We met a couple years ago.

So, did you meet a married couple years ago?

Or did you meet 'someone' two (or a few) years ago?

It seems that what Merriam-Webster lacks in integrity it replaces with inexactitude.

... 'all the people went to the show' instead of 'all of the people went to the show,' ...

Unless there is a specified group of people referred to, the formulation 'all of the people went to the show' sounds awkward to me. I wouldn't write it this way either, but 'all the people went to the show' sounds at least less stilted to me.

Instead of trying to nit pick the specific example given, just keep the use of the word of, or lack therein, in the next few stories you read.

So I'm nitpicking when I comment on the one example you stated for your assessment but a general lament about the downfall of the English language is OK?

I once had a long conversation with the editor-in-chief of a popular dictionary, who said there are many changes occurring all the time to English. For each one that draws protests from people who don't want to see the change, there are 100 or more that happen without anybody noticing. We all have our pet peeves.

Not sure what you're aiming at. Lemme answer this way: They leave "old" entries there, and in this particular dictionary the oldest (not what is "correct") definition is listed first. Any meaning that falls into disuse may be labeled "archaic," but is kept for historical reference. The dictionary makes no effort at establishing what is correct. To get into the dictionary, a new word (or new meaning) must show repeated use by "educated people." Some make it in with other labels, such "dialect." The word "ain't," comes with this warning: "Used regularly in the South by even the most highly educated people, a practice that is spreading to other areas." So much for Mrs. Higginbotham's 6th grade teachings that "ain't" is not in the dictionary and is always wrong. They are constantly checking for word uses; the staff (in the hundreds) uses "citations," usually printed but sometimes oral if the citation is from a broadcaster. They keep all those citations on file, and will, if pressed, display the citations in defense of their entries.

This dictionary does not depend on user submissions (though they accept them), but on "citations," that is printed (in newspapers and magazines, et al) or is broadcast (they get - as other media do - written transcripts of TV network news programs and some scripted programs), and they monitor online uses as well. Their "library" is all entered into a database, but every entry is backed up by a hard copy of that citation.

I think that's the real cusp of the problem, that using "of" seems too formal for informal uses.

Yet in Australia, New Zealand, Canada & Brittan it's not considered formal, it's just considered normal to not leave out the of.

so most authors will forgo it if it sounds right.

And to the rest of us (not in the US) it doesn't sound right.
It's a US thing.

Like where they say "Should of" where everyone else says "Should've" (Should have). When the word is used, it's not used correctly (for those of us that speak a more English form of English).

For us, speaking like a BBC newsreader of the 1950s is considered formal, most people use contractions. But leaving out words is something people that speak English as a second language generally do.

Like where they say "Should of" where everyone else says "Should've" (Should have). When the word is used, it's not used correctly

Really? You would have us write "he should of gone" instead of "he should have gone"? "Of" is a preposition, not a verb.

Really? You would have us write "he should of gone" instead of "he should have gone"? "Of" is a preposition, not a verb.

Which is why, as I thought I pointed out, i said it should be 'should have' (hence the contractions usually used; should've, could've, would've).

Really? You would have us write "he should of gone" instead of "he should have gone"? "Of" is a preposition, not a verb.

"Should of gone" should only appear within quotation marks indicating somebody spoke it. While it happens in spoken english, it still lies within the same realm as "Ain't" for the most part. The problem with that is "Should've" also sounds a lot like "Should of."

So if it isn't a speaker saying it, it would be "should've" or "should have." Otherwise it's either a typo, or a poorly trained writer/editor.

That should be: "should of gonged",

"Should'f gonged" isn't a valid abbreviation, "Should've gonged" is. Because the words used should've been "should have gonged".

"Should of gone" should only appear within quotation marks indicating somebody spoke it.

Yet someone speaking English would have (notice that?) said "Should have gone" hence the abbreviations "Should've", could've", would've". "Should'f", could'f", would'f" don't exist (even my spell checker doesn't like them, but it accepts the 've without complaint.

While it happens in spoken English

In America, ok. Just not the rest of the English speaking world (at least not yet).

as 'should have' rarely fits in place of 'should of'

What you mean to say is that 'Should of' never fits in where 'should have' should be used. Same for 'would have', and 'could have'.

For us, speaking like a BBC newsreader of the 1950s is considered formal, most people use contractions. But leaving out words is something people that speak English as a second language generally do.

And the United States, being a nation of immigrants, most of whom did not hail from the British Isles, has a long history of ESL-types with which to maul The King's(or Queen's) English in the intervening centuries.

change will happen.

If you don't owe an exact dollar amount, you will get change.