[This variation] is Oll Korrect.
February 4, 2012 2:43 PM Subscribe
OK, O.K., Ok, ok, Okay, or okay? Which is it, AskMe?
Which of the above spelling variations is "correct"? Wikipedia states that there's no consensus among the authorities, so I turn to you. Is there one in particular that is used most often?
Which of the above spelling variations is "correct"? Wikipedia states that there's no consensus among the authorities, so I turn to you. Is there one in particular that is used most often?
Spelling out "okay" seems (to me) to be the most common and most easily understood variation. "OK" or "ok" can look like you should be pronouncing it ock, and using "O.K." with periods in the abbreviation looks outdated these days - you don't see C.D. or A.T.M. anymore.
posted by flex at 2:46 PM on February 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by flex at 2:46 PM on February 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
I use ok/okay, and Ok/Okay (if it's a stand alone statement and I feel like capitalizing stuff).
Using periods, or capitalizing both letters in the truncated version of the word = madness to me.
posted by These Birds of a Feather at 2:47 PM on February 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
Using periods, or capitalizing both letters in the truncated version of the word = madness to me.
posted by These Birds of a Feather at 2:47 PM on February 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
I used OK formally and sometimes okay in conversation. And by formally I don't mean in papers or anything, just more formal than chat conversations.
posted by two lights above the sea at 2:47 PM on February 4, 2012
posted by two lights above the sea at 2:47 PM on February 4, 2012
A descriptivist would tell you they are all OK. A prescriptivist would pick one, snark about the rest, and call any users of the others a moron, heathen, hillbilly or lazy teenager. ymmv.
posted by OHenryPacey at 2:48 PM on February 4, 2012 [3 favorites]
posted by OHenryPacey at 2:48 PM on February 4, 2012 [3 favorites]
The answer is no. Personally, I use ok and Okay depending on context. I'm more likely to use the later in a more formal context.
If someone texts me to pick up milk on the way home, I'd probably text back "ok."
if I was writing something for work, I'd probably use a sentence like "But it is ever okay to degaussify your whojimawhatzits on a clear day? We spoke to the experts to find out." Etc.
posted by Diablevert at 2:49 PM on February 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
If someone texts me to pick up milk on the way home, I'd probably text back "ok."
if I was writing something for work, I'd probably use a sentence like "But it is ever okay to degaussify your whojimawhatzits on a clear day? We spoke to the experts to find out." Etc.
posted by Diablevert at 2:49 PM on February 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
"Okay" might work as the beginning of a sentence. "Ok" will never be OK.
posted by Yowser at 2:49 PM on February 4, 2012
posted by Yowser at 2:49 PM on February 4, 2012
The correct form in any formal-ish writing is 'okay'. I say formal-ish because okay is usually not okay in true formal communication.
posted by sid at 2:55 PM on February 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by sid at 2:55 PM on February 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
O.K. looks a little archaic to me, though it is the ancestral form. OK and Okay/okay (depending on whether it starts the sentence) look most normal to me. I used to see "okey" and "okeh" from time to time.
posted by hattifattener at 2:55 PM on February 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by hattifattener at 2:55 PM on February 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
Why would you capitalize a word in the middle of a sentence that isn't a proper noun? "He told me it was Okay" makes 0 sense to me, even from a descriptivist standpoint. The rest seem fine.
posted by tehloki at 2:56 PM on February 4, 2012
posted by tehloki at 2:56 PM on February 4, 2012
I prefer and exclusively use okay. Okay at the beginning of a sentence, of course.
If I'm texting I might use k, but never ok.
posted by insectosaurus at 3:10 PM on February 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
If I'm texting I might use k, but never ok.
posted by insectosaurus at 3:10 PM on February 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
ok, okay, and okie dokie all appear in my lexicon.
posted by elizardbits at 3:10 PM on February 4, 2012 [4 favorites]
posted by elizardbits at 3:10 PM on February 4, 2012 [4 favorites]
Google n-grams suggests that "OK" is the most common in published english books by a factor of around 50% or more. It would appear that Okay and okay are in second and third, but combined are more common than "OK", so I guess it depends on how much you want to focus on capitalized vs non-capitalized.
I'd personally call the winner "okay", with capitalization not taken into account.
posted by bessel functions seem unnecessarily complicated at 3:12 PM on February 4, 2012
I'd personally call the winner "okay", with capitalization not taken into account.
posted by bessel functions seem unnecessarily complicated at 3:12 PM on February 4, 2012
AP Style is OK, not "okay." That's the one I was taught to use, although that version was almost certainly chosen to save space.
posted by dekathelon at 3:12 PM on February 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by dekathelon at 3:12 PM on February 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
"okay" for legit writing.
"ok" for texting/chat.
But as wiki says, there isn't a consesus.
posted by DoubleLune at 3:14 PM on February 4, 2012 [3 favorites]
"ok" for texting/chat.
But as wiki says, there isn't a consesus.
posted by DoubleLune at 3:14 PM on February 4, 2012 [3 favorites]
I use ok or okay, with capitals where I would capitalise any other word. I'd say I use okay most of the time, and k sometimes in texts or while typing on my phone. Certainly when writing casual employment-related emails I type okay.
posted by jeather at 3:24 PM on February 4, 2012
posted by jeather at 3:24 PM on February 4, 2012
OK, per AP. Okay can be used if you're trying to get at the fact that someone emphasized part of it, like "Okay then."
posted by limeonaire at 3:25 PM on February 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by limeonaire at 3:25 PM on February 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
Oké
posted by Namlit at 3:28 PM on February 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by Namlit at 3:28 PM on February 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
Descriptively, a corpus search would give an answer based on actual use, depending on whatever texts are in the collection. The link to Google n–grams above is one such example, but other collections exist.
Prescriptively, there are two ways to look at it. The first is that is ought to be OK or ok based on historical use, as well as its etymology as an abbreviation. The other is that okay should be preferred, for not only is the etymology contested, but its use has gone far beyond any understanding of it as an abbreviation. The word is now treated as a simple affirmation, much the same as yes or aye, and its origin is no longer important enough to potentially obscure pronunciation.
I agree with the latter.
posted by Jehan at 3:44 PM on February 4, 2012
Prescriptively, there are two ways to look at it. The first is that is ought to be OK or ok based on historical use, as well as its etymology as an abbreviation. The other is that okay should be preferred, for not only is the etymology contested, but its use has gone far beyond any understanding of it as an abbreviation. The word is now treated as a simple affirmation, much the same as yes or aye, and its origin is no longer important enough to potentially obscure pronunciation.
I agree with the latter.
posted by Jehan at 3:44 PM on February 4, 2012
OK.
ok if i'm doing a lazy no cap thing.
I'm always surprised when I see okay. So many unnecessary letters!
posted by looli at 3:46 PM on February 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
ok if i'm doing a lazy no cap thing.
I'm always surprised when I see okay. So many unnecessary letters!
posted by looli at 3:46 PM on February 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
AP says "OK." Chicago Manual of Style takes no stance on it, but uses "OK" twice in the guide. Webster's lists "OK" before "okay," indicating that's preferred. As a result, every publication maintains a house style.
It is a mistake to think that "OK" is short for "okay," or that "okay" is somehow more formal. It's not.
posted by waldo at 3:55 PM on February 4, 2012 [2 favorites]
It is a mistake to think that "OK" is short for "okay," or that "okay" is somehow more formal. It's not.
posted by waldo at 3:55 PM on February 4, 2012 [2 favorites]
I use "Ok" because of GW-BASIC.
posted by AkzidenzGrotesk at 4:14 PM on February 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by AkzidenzGrotesk at 4:14 PM on February 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
"OK" makes perfect sense and doesn't need to have periods added. People will sound out each letter as it sounds. So will text to speech systems.
"Ok" and "ok" aren't OK, because they look as if they are meant to be pronounced "och". If you aren't Scottish, this is a dreadful affectation.
"Okay" is old-fashioned. Use it if you must, but many people will point and laugh at you.
Anyway, check the next JavaScript alert you see. I bet it says "OK".
posted by maudlin at 4:17 PM on February 4, 2012
"Ok" and "ok" aren't OK, because they look as if they are meant to be pronounced "och". If you aren't Scottish, this is a dreadful affectation.
"Okay" is old-fashioned. Use it if you must, but many people will point and laugh at you.
Anyway, check the next JavaScript alert you see. I bet it says "OK".
posted by maudlin at 4:17 PM on February 4, 2012
As someone pointed out, OK seems to be the approved usage. However, counter to the idea that O.K. is inappropriate because it's not an acronym, several proposed etymologies derive "O.K." from obscure slang abbreviations or use in political slogans, so there's a potential explanation for the periods.
posted by stoneandstar at 4:27 PM on February 4, 2012
posted by stoneandstar at 4:27 PM on February 4, 2012
> Chicago Manual of Style takes no stance on it
Au contraire, they state explicitly that they prefer solid caps for such abbreviations; they don't have to list every one. In fact, I'll quote section 10.6 in the latest (16th) edition: "Chicago generally prefers the all-capital form, unless the term is listed otherwise in Webster's." Webster's has "OK or okay." Case closed.
Which of course does not mean OK is the only acceptable form; it is the preferred form of both Chicago and Webster's, which are as close to standard as it gets in the U.S., but OK, O.K., ok, and okay are all acceptable. I might add that OK is also the spelling used in Allan Metcalf's superb book OK, and he has a whole section in the introduction on "The Many Spellings of OK"; you can read it here (pdf; scroll down to p. 7).
posted by languagehat at 5:01 PM on February 4, 2012 [3 favorites]
Au contraire, they state explicitly that they prefer solid caps for such abbreviations; they don't have to list every one. In fact, I'll quote section 10.6 in the latest (16th) edition: "Chicago generally prefers the all-capital form, unless the term is listed otherwise in Webster's." Webster's has "OK or okay." Case closed.
Which of course does not mean OK is the only acceptable form; it is the preferred form of both Chicago and Webster's, which are as close to standard as it gets in the U.S., but OK, O.K., ok, and okay are all acceptable. I might add that OK is also the spelling used in Allan Metcalf's superb book OK, and he has a whole section in the introduction on "The Many Spellings of OK"; you can read it here (pdf; scroll down to p. 7).
posted by languagehat at 5:01 PM on February 4, 2012 [3 favorites]
It's "OK" according to the Apple Human Interface Guidelines, and has been since 1984. To me, a button labeled "Ok" or "Okay" is a sure sign that some developer doesn't notice details.
(And if the button says Do It, then it's time to upgrade.)
posted by xil at 5:22 PM on February 4, 2012 [2 favorites]
(And if the button says Do It, then it's time to upgrade.)
posted by xil at 5:22 PM on February 4, 2012 [2 favorites]
I'd use "ok" only when speaking very informally; okay when speaking formally; OK on buttons and UI elements. "Ok" is the only one that seems really WRONG to me because it has no indication of being an abbreviation and therefore seems like you should just read it "ock".
posted by dagnyscott at 5:57 PM on February 4, 2012
posted by dagnyscott at 5:57 PM on February 4, 2012
I always preferred okay, until I started reading the noir authors. Hammett and Chandler use "okey," and I hear it in a raspy, sarcastic, hard voice in my head. Or a wheedling, oily voice of deception.
posted by Malla at 6:10 PM on February 4, 2012
posted by Malla at 6:10 PM on February 4, 2012
I think lower case o followed by upper case K is the way to go. I'm guessing this is not preferable as I was previously super-censored.
oK
posted by Rafaelloello at 6:10 PM on February 4, 2012
oK
posted by Rafaelloello at 6:10 PM on February 4, 2012
They are all okay.
posted by alms at 7:34 PM on February 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by alms at 7:34 PM on February 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
languagehat, I meant that they take no stance on "OK" versus "okay," having neglected to note all of the other, weird suggested spellings proposed by the OP. Obviously Chicago is not completely silent on abbreviations. :)Chicago Manual of Style takes no stance on itAu contraire, they state explicitly that they prefer solid caps for such abbreviations; they don't have to list every one.
However, counter to the idea that O.K. is inappropriate because it's not an acronym, several proposed etymologies derive "O.K." from obscure slang abbreviations or use in political slogans, so there's a potential explanation for the periods.stoneandstar, Allan Metcalf's OK: The Improbable Store of America's Greatest Word eliminates any debate about the potential origin of the word. (A book, BTW, that would have been better rendered as a long article. There's just not 198 pages of stuff worth saying about "OK," as it turns out.) All the evidence confirms the "Oll Korrect" theory. Its periodless rendering was solidified by its emergence simultaneously to telegraphy, when train stations would use "OK" to indicate that a train had passed by on time and without incident (p. 97–98). Its first published use, on March 23, 1839, rendered it as "o. k.," but within a few years it was standard to capitalize it (thanks to supporters of Martin Van Buren, "Old Kinderhook," who promoted him as "O.K."), and within a few decades after, the periods disappeared, aided by the railroads.
Anybody who puts periods in "OK" now, as "O.K.," should probably also hyphenate "to-morrow," just to be consistent.
posted by waldo at 8:13 PM on February 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
I would probably use "OK" casually, but "okay" in a more formal setting. As an example of the latter, in the recent high-profile Supreme Court case People v. Jones, the court wrote:
posted by John Cohen at 8:33 PM on February 4, 2012
The concurrence posits that “relatively short-term monitoring of a person’s movements on public streets” is okay, but that “the use of longer term GPS monitoring in investigations of most offenses” is no good.A quick Google search shows that the New York Times randomly uses either "okay," "OK," or "O.K." If the New York Times can't even figure this out, I think you can safely use whichever one you feel like.
posted by John Cohen at 8:33 PM on February 4, 2012
it's not O.K. or Okay (unless it's the start of a sentence). Otherwise knock yourself out.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:37 PM on February 4, 2012
posted by cjorgensen at 9:37 PM on February 4, 2012
I use "okay" to confirm that I understood something, and OK as in "everything is OK".
posted by jwmollman at 9:43 PM on February 4, 2012
posted by jwmollman at 9:43 PM on February 4, 2012
As a recent purchaser and enthusiastic reader of Garner's Modern American Usage, he states:
posted by marble at 10:25 PM on February 4, 2012
Although OK predominates in highly informal contexts, okay has an advantage in edited English: it more easily lends itself to cognate forms such as okays, okayer, okaying, and okayed. The term is a casualism in any event, but okay is slightly more dressed up than OK. Some purists prefer OK simply because it's the original form. It is, after all, the most successful Americanism ever--perhaps the best-known word on the planet.I hope that helps. Personally, I go for okay unless I am texting, in which case I use ok.
posted by marble at 10:25 PM on February 4, 2012
> it's not O.K.
This is simply not true. You may not like it that way, but the poster is not asking about your preferences (that goes for about half the attempted answers in this thread, for that matter). Please do not pull answers out of your ass, people.
> Garner's Modern American Usage
Garner is extremely conservative, which is OK if you like that sort of thing; the reason I recommend that people not use his guides is that he decides whether things are acceptable or not based purely on his own intuition, which leads to inconsistency and ignoring facts. Take this, from the bit you quote: "Some purists prefer OK simply because it's the original form." No it isn't; as waldo pointed out above, "o. k." is the original form. Garner, like so many prescriptivists, thinks he's so wise and learned that anything he says is ipso facto true.
> A book, BTW, that would have been better rendered as a long article. There's just not 198 pages of stuff worth saying about "OK," as it turns out.
So very true! But if it were an article, it wouldn't have nearly as much impact. It's too bad it's not as meaty as Jesse Sheidlower's The F-Word, which is worth every page and every penny.
posted by languagehat at 8:16 AM on February 5, 2012 [1 favorite]
This is simply not true. You may not like it that way, but the poster is not asking about your preferences (that goes for about half the attempted answers in this thread, for that matter). Please do not pull answers out of your ass, people.
> Garner's Modern American Usage
Garner is extremely conservative, which is OK if you like that sort of thing; the reason I recommend that people not use his guides is that he decides whether things are acceptable or not based purely on his own intuition, which leads to inconsistency and ignoring facts. Take this, from the bit you quote: "Some purists prefer OK simply because it's the original form." No it isn't; as waldo pointed out above, "o. k." is the original form. Garner, like so many prescriptivists, thinks he's so wise and learned that anything he says is ipso facto true.
> A book, BTW, that would have been better rendered as a long article. There's just not 198 pages of stuff worth saying about "OK," as it turns out.
So very true! But if it were an article, it wouldn't have nearly as much impact. It's too bad it's not as meaty as Jesse Sheidlower's The F-Word, which is worth every page and every penny.
posted by languagehat at 8:16 AM on February 5, 2012 [1 favorite]
You want to use extended a's if you want to signify that someone else has said something crazy. As in okaaaaaaaaaay.
posted by .kobayashi. at 1:03 PM on February 5, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by .kobayashi. at 1:03 PM on February 5, 2012 [1 favorite]
It's too bad it's not as meaty as Jesse Sheidlower's The F-Word, which is worth every page and every penny.
How did I not know about this book? Added to my list. Thank you.
ObOK content: In response to the question of which one is used the most often, I fed "OK," "O.K.," and "okay" into Google's Ngram Viewer, limiting the results to the modern era of 1950–2011. (It looks like their system doesn't know what to make of periods, because it claims no results for "O.K.," and I get the same for "U.S.A.," among other searches.) "OK" has consistent outpaced "okay" until—to my enormous surprise—2006, when the dive in "OK" that started in 2003 finally dropped below "okay," leaving "okay" more popular.
The prescriptivist in me hates this.
posted by waldo at 8:41 PM on February 5, 2012
How did I not know about this book? Added to my list. Thank you.
ObOK content: In response to the question of which one is used the most often, I fed "OK," "O.K.," and "okay" into Google's Ngram Viewer, limiting the results to the modern era of 1950–2011. (It looks like their system doesn't know what to make of periods, because it claims no results for "O.K.," and I get the same for "U.S.A.," among other searches.) "OK" has consistent outpaced "okay" until—to my enormous surprise—2006, when the dive in "OK" that started in 2003 finally dropped below "okay," leaving "okay" more popular.
The prescriptivist in me hates this.
posted by waldo at 8:41 PM on February 5, 2012
Anecdotally, Bill Watterson's editor insisted that he use "OK" in the lettering of a Calvin & Hobbes strip, even after it was all inked with "okay." And that's despite everything being all-caps, so "OK" is more prone to be read as "ock."
I don't know if it's an internet thing, but on a practical level, I avoid OK because it looks like you're yelling.
posted by TheSecretDecoderRing at 10:06 PM on February 5, 2012
I don't know if it's an internet thing, but on a practical level, I avoid OK because it looks like you're yelling.
posted by TheSecretDecoderRing at 10:06 PM on February 5, 2012
I'm not familiar with Google's Ngram Viewer. Does it know the difference between OK as 'okay' and OK as 'the postal abbreviation for Oklahoma'?
posted by Quonab at 1:00 PM on February 6, 2012
posted by Quonab at 1:00 PM on February 6, 2012
« Older Trying to convince myself that it's not really my... | I'm looking for 'business casual' role models. Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Betelgeuse at 2:44 PM on February 4, 2012