“a couple of weeks” ≠ a fortnight

JBD69 · 11-14-2007, 07:29 AM

Well, it's standard practice for dictionaries to place the most common definition of the word as the first definition.

Most people including me interpret a couple of weeks as two weeks. It's quite simple, and it's what most people will accept as the meaning because a couple of weeks is most commonly used to indicate exactly two weeks. There's no need to go into semantics.

But well, no harm in waiting a little longer actually if it's just two or three days longer than two weeks.

But if, by 'couple of weeks', SI means three or four weeks, then that's going to be a different case to swallow.

retired_w0lfpack1 · 11-14-2007, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by reddevil0728:
Why is there a need for them to even give us a "DATE" and for your information not "ESTIMATED DATE". I quote -"We will be releasing a final version of the patch in a couple of weeks"- There isn't the word "ESTIMATED" nor "IN ABOUT" presence in any parts of the sentence.

Again, that dictionary.com entry for the idiom "a couple of" is not mistakable for a "more than two, but not many", and "has been in standard use for centuries".

I don't think any lawyer would be able to make that stick as a promise that work would be completed in a fortnight - and I certainly don't think SI intended it to be taken as such a promise.

As to the argument "SI should've been as vague as possible" - I think that they were vague, and it takes a willful (or hopeful) misinterpretation of the idiom "a couple of" to make it not-vague.

jstp · 11-14-2007, 07:30 AM

OK, it's 1:30 AM here & I need to go to bed, so I'll just add that I think it's highly unreasonable for people to attach a timetable to how long it might/would take to fix something as funked up as FM/WWSM was when it was shipped. I'm not saying SI isn't culpable for sending out a flawed product. I'm just saying that I have a fundamental problem with people latching onto "a couple of" as a means to take out their frustration on SI and paint them as liars, which I trust that they are not.

Don't know why the product was sent out as cocked up as it was. But I do know that I want them to take as much time as is reasonably necessary to create a patch that will make it right. And once that reasonable amount of time passes, and we still don't have a patch, I expect them to keeping working on it until it is right.

retired_w0lfpack1 · 11-14-2007, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaroq:
Again, that dictionary.com entry for the idiom "a couple of" is not mistakable for a
precise amount - a "more than two, but not many", and "has been in standard use for centuries".

Bah. Missing words badly changed the meaning of that sentence.

retired_TehEmoCow · 11-14-2007, 07:31 AM

a couple as said is vague, you can be a couple but both be cheating on each other or you can be home in a couple of hours after a night clubbing and then come back next afternoon. si were trying to be vague, obviously they're not happy with it, don't know why everyone was stating the exact date and time they expected the patch to come out seemed a bit obsessive and it is just a game

retired_lisa strom · 11-14-2007, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keane16MUFC:
OK, it's 1:30 AM here & I need to go to bed, so I'll just add that I think it's highly unreasonable for people to attach a timetable to how long it might/would take to fix something as funked up as FM/WWSM was when it was shipped. I'm not saying SI isn't culpable for sending out a flawed product. I'm just saying that I have a fundamental problem with people latching onto "a couple of" as a means to take out their frustration on SI and paint them as liars, which I trust that they are not.

Don't know why the product was sent out as cocked up as it was. But I do know that I want them to take as much time as is reasonably necessary to create a patch that will make it right. And once that reasonable amount of time passes, and we still don't have a patch, I expect them to keeping working on it until it is right.

My concern is actually:
Did Sport Interactive actually underestimated the time that is needed to come out with a patch and overestimated their ability to come out with the patch with the given period of time for their latest and successful football management game Football Manager 2008?

jstp · 11-14-2007, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlayerX:
SI should've been as vague as possible, that way there would've been no set expectations and no let-downs.

See, and I read "a couple of" as being vague, not as "a fortnight."

OK, bedtime. Keep firing. I'll chime back in sometime after 1300 BST. And by "sometime after," I mean "maybe a minute, maybe a day, maybe never if SI scuttles this thread."

retired_lisa strom · 11-14-2007, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fatcake:
a couple as said is vague, you can be a couple but both be cheating on each other or you can be home in a couple of hours after a night clubbing and then come back next afternoon. si were trying to be vague, obviously they're not happy with it, don't know why everyone was stating the exact date and time they expected the patch to come out seemed a bit obsessive and it is just a game

ITs a game, but we bought the game with our HARD EARN Money. If its a free game and SI is working for free, I got nothing to say. But they are working for a profit.

retired_lisa strom · 11-14-2007, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaroq:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by reddevil0728:
Why is there a need for them to even give us a "DATE" and for your information not "ESTIMATED DATE". I quote -"We will be releasing a final version of the patch in a couple of weeks"- There isn't the word "ESTIMATED" nor "IN ABOUT" presence in any parts of the sentence.

Again, that dictionary.com entry for the idiom "a couple of" is not mistakable for a "more than two, but not many", and "has been in standard use for centuries".

I don't think any lawyer would be able to make that stick as a promise that work would be completed in a fortnight - and I certainly don't think SI intended it to be taken as such a promise.

As to the argument "SI should've been as vague as possible" - I think that they were vague, and it takes a willful (or hopeful) misinterpretation of the idiom "a couple of" to make it not-vague. </BLOCKQUOTE>In the first place, no dictionary is ever 100% right, there is bound to be some discrepancy in their definitions given and the most important thing, is SI expecting us to think of only the definition number 14? Everyone is different. The best they can do is to make it clear or not even say anything at all.

Emm · 11-14-2007, 07:39 AM

There is a difference in the UK and US use of the word couple.

Quote:

[edit] Usage notes
In U.K. usage, couple is followed by of when used to mean "two", as in "a couple of people". In US usage, of is often omitted, as in "I went there a couple times".
In the U.S., "a couple of things" or people may be used to mean two of them, but it is also often used to mean any small number. The latter usage is disputed.
The farm is a couple of miles off the main highway [=a few miles away].
In the U.K., "a couple of" almost always means just two
We’re going out to a restaurant with a couple of friends [=two friends].

Maybe SI are embracing "Soccer".

“a couple of weeks” ≠ a fortnight

Discuss Football Manager 2008 for PC, MAC and PSP versions of FM 2008. Click here to view our FM resources.

“a couple of weeks” ≠ a fortnight