Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!amdahl!gam From: gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) Newsgroups: net.jokes.d,net.nlang Subject: Re: Origin of Words Message-ID: <295@amdahl.UUCP> Date: Sun, 30-Sep-84 19:19:52 EDT Article-I.D.: amdahl.295 Posted: Sun Sep 30 19:19:52 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 2-Oct-84 03:55:34 EDT References: <1541@uvacs.UUCP> Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale CA Lines: 31 > [From] Ray Lubinsky, University of Virginia > > I'm suprised that nobody's just gone to the dictionary for this. Mine > at home (Webster's 7th Collegiate, I think) has this to say about 'OK'... > > OK, O.K. (...) adj., adv., interj. [orig. U.S. colloq.: first > known use (March 23, 1839) by C.G. Greene, editor, in the > Boston _Morning_Post_, as if abbrev. for "oll korrect", > facetious misspelling of _all_correct_ (cf. _Am._Speech_, > Vol. XXXVIII, No. 1): popularized by use in name of Demo- > cratic _O.K._ Club (1840), in allusion to > _Old_Kinderhook_, native village of Martin Van Buren, whom > the club supported for a 2d term ] > > Now. Since that's out of the way, everybody can get back to arguing. OK? OK! I would just like to add some pertinent information from Stewart Berg Flexner, language guy, who says: ``OK'' started out as part of a humorous fad or game of abbreviating phrases in an outrageous way (sometimes humorously misspelled to add to the fun) among a few Boston and New York writers, journalists and wits in the summer of 1838.... He later confirms Webster's dating of first written use. -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!gam [ This does not necessarily reflect the opinions of my supervisor, my employer, its stockholders, their siblings et. al. ]