COUPLES IN LOVE:
A SINGULAR SUBJECT
Journal of Healing – Feb. 11, 2004
By Mary Koch

A life insurance agent phoned last week about a policy my parents bought for me when I was a child. He had a proposal that, he said, would save me money. During our three-minute conversation, he made a half-dozen grammatical errors, leaving me skeptical about taking his advice.

I put him off by asking a question he couldn’t immediately answer. He was supposed to call me back and still hasn’t. Meanwhile, I’ve been asking myself if it’s fair to judge someone on the basis of his ability (or lack thereof) to match "is" and "are" with the proper singular or plural subject.

There are subtle nuances to grammar that can be confusing. I know people who are wise in many things and still mix up "is" with "are." They, however, do not sell insurance. I can’t think of any grammatical issue as confusing as an insurance policy.

Well, maybe one.

* * *

I WAS TRAINED as a journalist when the word "couple" was a singular noun, meaning two persons paired together. When we in the newsroom wrote wedding stories, we would write that the newlywed couple "is honeymooning in Canada."

But language changes, and so do the rules. About 25 years ago, the Associated Press, which publishes the usage bible for the few journalists who still care about such things, decreed that when we write "couple" and mean two people, the word takes a plural verb. Hence, the newlywed couple "are" honeymooning in Canada.

If on the other hand, AP decreed, we are writing about one couple among several, it’s a singular verb: "That couple is the only one getting married among six couples matched by computer."

I objected strenuously. The new rule was confusing. It was an assault on the very institution of marriage. Clear back in Genesis we're told that when one person cleaves to the other, they become "one flesh." A couple is a single unit.

A baseball team has nine players, but when the team plays badly it IS in last place, not are. An orchestra has many musicians, but it IS expected to play in tune, not are.

Of course, there’s always President Clinton’s infamous observation – it depends on what your definition of "is" is. Yet it’s questionable whether he fully appreciates the is-ness of being a couple.

* * *

IT'S A CHALLENGE being an is-couple – two people who are unified. I’ve come to acknowledge – grudgingly – that sometimes the only way to maintain that is-ness is to occasionally be a couple who "are."

"I’m taking Wednesday off and driving over to the Methow Valley," I told a friend.

"Is John going with you?" he asked. I did not welcome the question, and answered in even tones: "No. I said I was taking the day OFF."

You know you need some time away when you begin to speak and think of your marriage as a job instead of a relationship. I needed a day of not pushing the wheelchair, not trying to find handicapped parking spots, not skipping stores I’d like to visit because they aren’t accessible.

John would like a day of freedom from these concerns, too. No question. I take these occasional "days off" with sadness for him, but he never objects.

He gives me his usual send-off: "Go with God, " and just for a while, this couple "are."

Alone, I browse through galleries and shops, buy a book of poetry and read it while I eat soup that someone else made.