Collective Nouns - Married couple. (Page 1 of 2)

Perhaps a good way to look at it is that if you put "A couple" as opposed to "The couple" the correct "is" would certainly sound better to the ear than "are" would. The "a" shows correctly that it is one couple which is singular; make it "two couples" then you are plural. Keep in mind that I am probably one of the least qualified on this site to answer questions concerning grammar. If it helps, use it, if not, the trash can is close by. Take care. Vern

Maybe that's why we had a revolution. That's not politics, just a speculative written narrative, lol. Take care. Vern

It depends on the context. https://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com … -pick-one/

'The couple is in their sixties,' just sounds weird in any variation of English. I think it would jar the majority of readers unless written purposely within the dialogue of a character for whom English is not their first language.  English is a bastard of a langauge to learn (and I should know), for the very reasons this discussion exists. The right English used wrongly (or debatably) is often a trait of second language speakers/writers. It can be quaint within dialogue and a powerful device within characterization, if that 2nd langauge speaker is whom you want to depict.   

Sometimes speaking (or writing) English correctly, or to the letter of the grammar law, is wrong because that is not how the language is actually used.

I've struggled with this since college days, when we argued whether we should write "The Athenian Society invite you to their..."   or "The Athenian Society invites you to its..."  We dang near came to blows.

Well, it goes without saying there was no convincing those idiots. In the years I was in charge of them, I wrote the invitations my way.

All of which is a prelude to my saying I have never come across a rule for this. I tend to write it however it feels  right. If it seems like something a person would say that's how I write it.

I think a couple, being two, would call for a plural verb form.
Ben and Judy have been married for forty years. The couple have been in love since high school.

See?

That's probably because you studied or were taught grammar?

I think that most people naturally 'feel' that the word couple has a plural assumption.

So we wouldn’t say;

‘The boats is two in number’, we’d say, ‘The boats are two in number.
Or,
‘his testicles is swollen’, we’d say, ‘his testicles are swollen.’
Or,
‘Summer and winter is my favourite seasons’, we’d say, ‘summer and winter are my favourite seasons.’

And therefore we say; 'The couple are in their sixties,’ rather than, 'The couple is in their sixties.

So, turn of phrase speech patterns triumph over grammar all of the time. We use the language as it suits and so it evolves. Grammar is only ever playing catch up. 

Except for this man (the final speaker)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QereR0CViMY

A couple, in their sixities...

How many couples?  1. 

A couple is sitting by the fire ignoring each other.
Two couples are sitting by the fire ignoring each other.

One couple ...is .
Two couples ...are.

The couple contains two people but is being referred to as a SINGLE entity.

But that is my opinion only.

T

Indeed. And that was the first part of my point.

In the course of everyday language (the way generally people speak) the word 'couple' whether plural or not, inherits the same turn of phrase. In my world I feel that more people would say,  'the couple are sitting by the fire' than would say 'the couple is sitting by the fire.'  whichever form is politically correct.

I prefer to read writing that sounds natural or enticing to my ear, even if it is not strictly grammatically correct. This is creative writing after all; not a legal document. If correct grammar is to be enforced, it would outlaw poetry and undermine many bestseller novels.

A long time (nine or so years) ago on the previous version of this site, when I first joined, some here may recall there was a discussion/debate upon the merits of clinically perfect grammar. I remember at that time some member put up an example passage from a classic novel (I think it was 'Gone with the Wind') and then ran it through the AutoCrit filter.  It was very revealing exercise.  The original prose had a rich and characteristic voice, an engaging and evocative read. The AutoCrit applied edit was sterile and dull.  A lot of 'was' and 'were' was edited out, sentences shortened, words/phrases accused of being cliché removed, grammar corrected, punctuation moved, removed or inserted etc.

The corrected passages conveyed the same story but it definitely lost the sparkle and there was no longer anything special about it.  The subtle 'X-factor' within the narrative voice had been 'normalized.'

Correcting prose to conform to grammar rules the writer had not previously considered or adhered to at the time of creation can remove something valuable. Sure something like AutoCrit can improve poorly written writing, but it can also remove character from the author's voice, and it is the author's voice we readers fall for... or not. 

I've never fallen in love with the narrative voice within a legal document.

Yes.

It is only right and proper that the, 'you need to learn the rules, before you can break the rules' axiom is trooped out to sit upon the fence at any discussion upon grammar variations or deviations within creative writing. No conversation upon the subject would be complete without it and we are well to be reminded.

However, the discussion here is more to do with the fact that correct grammar can often make prose within creative writing stiff and less eloquent.
I mean, in order to make creative writing a better reading experience the ‘advised best practice’ is against grammar in several respects. For example, ending sentences with prepositions isn't actually incorrect in grammar but it makes for inelegant writing. Similarly, Split Infinitives, Passive Voice, starting sentences with ‘And, or ‘But’ are actually perfectly acceptable within grammar. No law against them, but you wouldn’t want to write like that because it makes the writing appear unstylish and unprofessional.

What we are talking about here is why do we (or the majority of us) write ‘Who’ when the ‘who’ object is a preposition or an objective case and grammar law dictates we should actually be writing ‘Whom’

As with the eternal, ‘hanged’ VS ‘hung’ debate, so ‘the couple are sat upon the sofa’ VS ‘the couple is sat upon the sofa’.

Should we write the way we actually speak, or must we write the way we don’t speak?

Does grammar define the language or does language (eventually) define grammar (proven by international differences within 'English'  Grammar definitions) ?

Writing dialog is simple. Niles Crane speaks the same language very differently than Rocky Balboa. We can depict this. Narration is dialog too; the writers voice. Would I write (and expect to read) a different writing style within a romance novella than within an essay, an inventory or an affidavit?

Quotes:

Somebody here once said (and I think it was Brosna/Nadine' of the old site), that 'very few Grammar Professors are ever published.'

I assume that to be true because her husband is a highly esteemed Grammar Professor and would know.

It's true that many of the most successful (monetarily) creative writers of this era (J.K Rowling, E.L James, Stephenie Meyer...) were not strict grammar correctness advocates within their bestselling products . Old school classics? The attributed quote of Mark Twain,  “I know grammar by ear only, not by note, not by the rules.”