I am shocked to see someone as perspicacious as Our Cecil perpetuate the largely discredited origin of the ubiquitous “OK” as an abbreviation of “Oll Korrect”.
This is only one of many possible origins of that phrase, and respected etymologists have found no evidence to favor this one over any of the others.
Shame, Cecil, for passing on this doubtful origin as fact!
Paul. Welcome to the boards.
The powers that be request that you link to the column being discussed, just to make it easier for people who are reading your reply to read the original column for themselves.
If you’re referring to Cecil’s original column about the origin of O.K., then the link is What does “OK” stand for?
You’re probably referring to his column of today What is leetspeek? wherein he tangentially refers to his previous discussion of O.K.
Could you please list some of the “respected etymologists” who disagree with Cecil’s interpretation? After you do that, I’ll try to list some other respected etymologist who agree with Cecil and Allen Walker Read.
If the theory is “largely discredited,” I was probably asleep in that seminar. I’ll admit to being a rather “newbie” word maven, but am always willing to learn. And I’ve been proven wrong regulary.
The Oxford English Dictionary is, for my money, the gold standard of English etymology. They say
If the “oll korrect” origin has been discredited, nobody bothered to inform any of these generally reliable etymology websites:
http://www.wordorigins.org/wordoro.htm
What would be the purpose of that post, barbitu8?? The information provided by the person who has created that website shows that he is a histopathologist who has an interest in word origins. Hardly someone to use for the purpose of establishing the “straight dope.” Certainly not in the category of “respected entymologist.” :rolleyes:
No matter what his profession, he has researched the topic, and I submitted that link as to represent a different opinion. Often different sources will present the same info because they are taken from the same source. His arguments seem valid to me. I have not checked the other links yet - but I will - but so far I tend to agree with him. Why OK, when AK, or even AC, would make more sense.
:o I guess I should have read the links. It appears that the histopathologist missed the fact that it was the fad at that time for crazy abbreviations, which certainly lends much credence to that theory, esp. because of the timing of Old Kinderhook the following year. However, those links also state that this is the accepted theory - until such time if ever that new material is turned up.
Chemical Trivia
There are compounds called turates, one class of which is called barbiturate. We learned to pronounce this word with the emphasis on the third syllable, to avoid having it fall on the ‘bitch’.
The second r gets swallowed by so many speakers, much like the first r in February (e.g., Don McLean, American Pie), that many do not even realize it is there.
Interesting tangent, but I notice that you spell hyjyljyjl without the final “L”. And it’s pronounced “Throat Warbler Mangrove”. (OK, it’s an overused joke on these boards, but still good dammit!)
As for OK, nothing I’ve seen convinces me that Cecil’s answer is wrong. It started an abbreviation for the intentionally misspelled “oll korrect”, and Van Buren’s campaign slogan kept it from fading into obscurity. It seems there are many words and phrases like that, whose origins and reasons for continued existence are not the same.
Ok, Ok, Ok, Ok! It still translates to the same thing,“OK.”
Presumably you are referring to the thread you started in the In My Humble Opinion forum: Not to offend, but to reccommend.
Nobody who replied in that thread used the word “crap”. You used that word yourself. The reason why people did not offer much advice to you in that thread was because your original post was unintelligible. Moderator MEBuckner politely explained that you should try to understand the forum titles before posting.
(my bold) This might be more use to the author of The Bedtime Browser website than to you, but Cecil pointed out in his column that OK was used instead of the more logical AC as an attempt at humour. Not funny to you or me perhaps, but no doubt the journalists of Boston were rolling around in the 1840s. Cecil also passes on some more examples from A. W. Read:
Thanks for clearing that up for me everton. Next time I will look more closely at the nature of the fourm. I’ll be back later in the week to see what’s going on.