Pulled from another thread

[Harry Bloomfield]

Is it a local thing Harry?

I have no idea, I never heard it used by anyone else.

What about the word "Couple" it means two but how often is it spoken to mean "About Two" therefore perhaps 2 or 3 or 4 even?

If you say a couple of minutes, or two minutes, that is usually quite variable.

 

[ebee]

I have no idea, I never heard it used by anyone else.

If you say a couple of minutes, or two minutes, that is usually quite variable.

Yes but lets say some says "Can I have a couple of sweets off you please?" and you have a bag say of at least 100 and you give them a couple they might well say "you have only given me two!" they were clearly hoping for 3 or 4 at least and possibly up to 10 say

 

[JohnW2]

If you say a couple of minutes, or two minutes, that is usually quite variable.

Yes, it can be.

Have you perhaps noticed that (for that reason) I usually modify phrases like "a minute or two" or "a day or two" to become "a minute or three" or "a day or three" ?

 

[SUNRAY]

As far as I'm concerned couple is still two.

The happy couple at a wedding is two whether there's a couple of children or daschunds in the mix or not. The terms thrupple and sinple now exist when the relationship is three people or those who chose to share their life with none other. (I don't know if that couple of words have reached any dictionaries yet)

When one couples a train it is two carraiges which are connected regardless of how many carraiges exist each side of the two.

I'll happily ask for a couple of something: pints of beer, fish and chips, seats on an aircraft etc and not expect the quantity to be questioned, likewise someone asking me for a couple of cups of tea will be two and a couple of sugars in them is equally two.

 

[JohnW2]

As far as I'm concerned couple is still two.

I don't doubt that such is the intended' use of the word. However, it's certainly also used more loosely.

That is particularly true when the word is used in relation to something quantitative, rather than something that can be 'counted' - if people talk a about "a couple of miles", "a couple of kilograms", a "couple of hours" etc., they will rarely be intending to say that the numerical value of the quantity in question is exactly 2.0 of the units concerned. In other words, "a couple of Xs" is used to mean "about/approximately two Xs". If they wanted to indicate precisely 2.0 in such situations, they would normally say "two", rather than "a couple"

 

[SUNRAY]

I don't doubt that such is the intended' use of the word. However, it's certainly also used more loosely.

That is particularly true when the word is used in relation to something quantitative, rather than something that can be 'counted' - if people talk a about "a couple of miles", "a couple of kilograms", a "couple of hours" etc., they will rarely be intending to say that the numerical value of the quantity in question is exactly 2.0 of the units concerned.

Whether that is correct or not:
I would go 2 miles
I would aquire/supply 2 Kg
I would be there in 2 hours

Unless of course

... other words... "about/approximately two Xs".

is used to mean something different.

If they wanted to indicate precisely 2.0 in such situations, they would normally say "two", rather than "a couple"

 

[JohnW2]

I would go 2 miles
I would aquire/supply 2 Kg

...which are fine, since they are 'explicit', which would not necessarily be clear if you had said "a couple".

I would be there in 2 hours

That one's a bit ambiguous - or, at least, 'unclear'. "I would arrive there in 2 hours" would be OK, the same as the above. However, "I would be there in 2 hours" would not preclude the possibility that you might arrive much earlier than that!

 

[SUNRAY]

...which are fine, since they are 'explicit', which would not necessarily be clear if you had said "a couple".

That one's a bit ambiguous - or, at least, 'unclear'. "I would arrive there in 2 hours" would be OK, the same as the above. However, "I would be there in 2 hours" would not preclude the possibility that you might arrive much earlier than that!

well I was replying to your far from explicit words.

 

[JohnW2]

well I was replying to your far from explicit words.

I'm not sure of your point, unless you are simply agreeing with me that if someone wanted to refer to exactly 2.0 miles/kilograms/hours, one would usually say/write "2", and not "a couple".

 

[SUNRAY]

I'm not sure of your point, unless you are simply agreeing with me that if someone wanted to refer to exactly 2.0 miles/kilograms/hours, one would usually say/write "2", and not "a couple".

Far from it, in my book a couple means 2 unless other words make it an aproximation in just the same way 'a dozen' means 12 but 'about a dozen means about 12.

a "couple of hours"

is not explicit but 'I'll be with you in a couple of hours' or 'be in the pub in a couple of hours' is. in just the same way as 'buy a couple of bottles of milk' is not 1 bottle, not 3 bottles, not 2.1375 bottles etc, or move up a couple of Kc's.

 

[ebee]

Well I think we all agree really then? A couple can mean two in some instances yet in other instances it can be intended to mean approx 2 or so in some contexts, we do not often say exactly two or approx 2 so it might be an indication of either by the user and by the listerner.

No wonder we get confused and cause confusion oursleves sometimes.

I do remember on TV some years ago Bob Holness witch is quiz game going horizontal-ish by one team and vertical-ish by the opposing team and a couple (2 or more in this meaning) saying "you have exactly 60 seconds" to go! I thought his words of exactly 60 seconds might be asuumed by some to imply not 59 seconds and not 61 seconds rather than within 60 seconds.
Strange how you tend to remember daft thoughts innit? LOL

 

[JohnW2]

Far from it, in my book a couple means 2 unless other words make it an aproximation in just the same way 'a dozen' means 12 but 'about a dozen means about 12.

OK. That's presumably 'how it should be' (and how it often is) but I still think that it's far from uncommon (in relation to quantitative things) for people to use "a couple" to indicate a degree of possible approximation that is not conveyed by "two".

Given that, I think that, essentially subconsciously, I will usually interpret a statement about "a couple of X" ('quantitative') as potentially more approximate than if the statement had talked in terms of "two" - but perhaps that's just me?

 

[JohnW2]

Well I think we all agree really then? A couple can mean two in some instances yet in other instances it can be intended to mean approx 2 or so in some contexts, we do not often say exactly two or approx 2 so it might be an indication of either by the user and by the listerner. .... No wonder we get confused and cause confusion oursleves sometimes.

Yes, I think that's a fair statement of the situation - so it's essentially down to 'the eye of the beholder'.

As I've just written, I think that my personal subconscious regards "a couple" as potentially less precise than "two". In other words, for example, if you told me that you were going on holiday for "a couple of weeks", I think I'd be less certain that you really meant exactly 14 days than if you had said "two weeks" - but, as said, maybe that;s just me.

If one wants to indicate that a statement is numerically 'precise', one certainly should use actual numbers (rather than "a couple" etc.), if not also explicitly qualifying number with "exactly" or somesuch.

I do remember on TV some years ago Bob Holness ..... saying "you have exactly 60 seconds" to go! I thought his words of exactly 60 seconds might be asuumed by some to imply not 59 seconds and not 61 seconds rather than within 60 seconds.

Yes, but that's different, and similar to Sunray's "I would be there in 2 hours" - which does not necessarily mean that I would arrive at 2 hours but, rather, would remain correct if I arrived in 'two hours or less' ('within 2 hours').

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I understand what you are saying but I don't understand why you think as you do.

You must find that frustrating, and presumably (hopefully) realise that I also am frustrated by the fact that I have been unable to understand the logic/justification underlying what I understand to be your view. I'm therefore going to have yet another go to 'ask the question', by initially splitting it into two parts, each of which can (and should be) answered with Yes/No....

(1)... My understanding is that you regard it as 'wrong'/'unfortunate'/'annoying'/whatever that the failure to correct deviations ('errors'/'incorrect') in use of English from what you were taught has led to perpetuation/spread of those 'errors' such that they have now become part of 'common English usage' (even though you still regard them as 'incorrect'). Is that true (Yes/No)?

(2)... Do you similarly believe that it would have been reasonable for, say, your grandfather to regard it as 'wrong'/'unfortunate'/'annoying'/whatever that the failure to correct deviations ('errors'/'incorrect') in use of English from what he was taught had led to perpetuation/spread of those 'errors' such that they became part of 'common English usage' (even though he still regard them as 'incorrect') (Yes/No)?​

Unless I have totally misunderstood you for years, I imagine that your answer to (1) will be 'Yes'.

If your answer to (2) is also yes, then how do you justify your personal view? If your grandfather regarded the language that he was taught as being the only 'correct' English, which would remain the only correct English for evermore, then why did the 'changed' language (which he still regarded as incorrect) suddenly become 'correct' when you were born and started learning the language?

In terms of a language which (I think) has been around, and constantly 'evolving', for something like 1,500 years, it would seem inappropriate (and, frankly, 'arrogant') to decide that the point in time at which you happened to have been born (and started learning the language) was so 'special' that the evolved state of English at that point in time suddenly became, and was going to remain for evermore, the only 'correct English'.

On the other hand, if your answer to (2) is 'No', then why does your view of what is the only 'correct' English (for evermore) 'trump' your grandfather's view that the language he had been taught would be the only correct English (for evermore), such that he would regard the English you had been taught to be 'incorrect;' ?

 

[ericmark]

In will talk around about a couple of minutes to answer this. A phase used, but as to why we say that, not a clue. As to "These ones" that grates on me. Same as the very end, or very last, except for "The very last of the summer wine" that did make sense.

As to worst, worster, and worstest. That takes the biscuit. Oh, and of course bestest.