I just was wondering about this… about where the expression OK comes for ( http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_250 )
If this person meant about saying “Ok” in response to a suggestion or something, then wouldn’t it really be, “okay?” Isn’t that the more correct form of, “Ok?”
please, correct me if i’m wrong…
Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary says “okay” is a variant of OK, so I would think that OK would be “more korrect”.
ok
Main Entry: ** [sup]1[/sup]OK**
Variant(s): or okay /O-'kA, in assenting or agreeing also 'O-"kA/
Function: adverb or adjective
Etymology: abbreviation of oll korrect, facetious alteration of all correct
: ALL RIGHT
er…why did you say “more korrect?” i spelled correct, correctly…
Because of the idea that it comes from the phrase “oll korrect”, I’d wager.
how old’s that phrase? i’ve never heard it…
either way, i still use the spelling “okay”
It’s pretty old, but it’s in Arnold’s dictionary cite above.
Isn’t it Dutch?
Basically a tongue-in-cheek early adaptation of Gaudere’s law, I’m thinking.
Uh, Gaudere’s law, of course, being the one that states something like “Any post that is criticizing the grammar/spelling/typing in another will contain a mistake of its own.”
KallieOkami writes:
> how old’s that phrase? i’ve never heard it…
> either way, i still use the spelling “okay”
Did you read the column that you link to in your OP? Go back and read it again. Etymologists now accept Allen Walker Read’s theory that “O.K.” came from a joking misspelling of “all correct” as “oll korrect” in Boston in 1839, where it was part of a fad of coming up with cutesy abbreviations of misspelled phrases. There’s a very well documented history of the use of the word. It’s also quite clear that the spelling “O.K.” is older than the spelling “okay,” regardless of which spelling you happen to use.
:smack:
Just kidding, I’m a total idiot.
If, in fact, there is a Choctaw affirmative okeh, I find that far more plausible an origin than O(ll) K(orrect). Okay is a word. I suppose next you’ll tell me empty is properly M.T., for “mostly tapped.”
Except that we know that there was a brief fad in 1838-39 for using such expressions, and we know that “OK” for “Oll Korrect” appeared as part of that fad, and we know that it was brought to a prominence that the rest of the fad was not when it was used for “Old Kinderhook” (Martin Van Buren) in the election of 1840. It’s all there in the contemporary printed record.
Whereas “Okeh” has never been shown to be anything but a wild guess made years afterward.
O.K.
“O” as in “Oh!”.
K as in “Que” (Spanish for “that”).
so that…O.K.= “Oh That!” via commingling of languages/cultures.
Oh yes. That makes perfect sense. There were, after all, millions of people who spoke Spanish in Massachusetts and New York, ca. 1840, and Spanish culture had become newly popular following the romantic events at San Antonio.
i guess Professor Read knows his stuff, but i heard a simpler explanation that seems pretty plausible:
zero kills= OK or 0K to quickly report no casualties to your commandig officer (or whatever).
this would also explain the hand symbol for OK, which as we all know is to form an O (or zero) with our thumb and index finger, which is something none of the other explanations address.
erikpurne: If you can find documentary evidence of that theory, it might be interesting.
Anyway, this is why etymology is such an uncertain task: Everyone seems to have his own pet theory on the origin of every word, and evidence never seems to be an issue for the most prolific theorists.
Can you show that “kills” was being used as a noun meaning “deaths” in the 1840’s. Can you show that “zero” was being used as an adjective meaning “no” by non-mathematicians in the 1840’s? Can you show that “o” was being used as an alias for “zero” in the 1840’s?
Sorry, I didn’t mean it to sound as though I were proposising a theory to be refuted, I just thought it would be worth mentioning since it’s the only explanation that addresses the ubiquitous hand symbol.
I can’t, of course prove any of that, but
doesn’t seem very improbable
it wouldn’t have to, since “zero kills,” with “zero” as an adjective indicating the absence of any or all units under consideration, would work fine and is well out of mathematician territory (2 kills, 1 kill, 0 kills)
doesn’t seem that improbable
You can’t just make three wild guesses, assume that they’re “oll korrect”, and then pile another guess on top of them. Look up “kill”, “zero”, and “o” in the Oxford English Dictionary, and see if your proposed uses were common in 1840. I, for one, wouldn’t bet my life on any one of them, let alone all three.
We have “oll korrect” and “Old Kinderhook” in printed matter from the period. Guesses based on guesses don’t stand up to solid evidence.