OK, Ok, or Okay?

[AsylumSeeker]

I lean toward "Okay", and suggest this when editing. Some writers disagree, preferring "Ok" or "OK", which is, of course, "Okay" with me.

So I decided to Google (or is that "google"?) it and have found that there seems to be no agreed-upon consensus.

So if anyone has any opinions, I'd appreciate hearing them.

 

[sethp]

Ok for a quick reply...Okay for longer text ..Ok is never OK. Okay?

 

[AsylumSeeker]

When is a story a quick reply?

Ok for a quick reply...Okay for longer text ..Ok is never OK. Okay?

In a story consisting of multiple pages, I believe "Okay" (if starting a sentence) or "okay" (mid-sentence) is appropriate, just as "three" is more appropriate than "3".

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Whether Ok, ok or OK, it's never okay. Spell it out. A fair number of agents/editors seem to dislike, ok, but I've never known any member of those tribes to object to, okay. If in doubt, check the Chicago Manual of Style.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[sr71plt]

Most U.S. publishers use the latest edition of the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (the 11th edition is the latest) as the authority for word spellings, rendering, and hyphenation (and the Chicago Manual of Style prefers this dictionary as well--7.1). And most of them prefer the first-listed spelling in that dictionary. In this case, it would be "OK."

 

[drksideofthemoon]

Whether Ok, ok or OK, it's never okay. Spell it out. A fair number of agents/editors seem to dislike, ok, but I've never known any member of those tribes to object to, okay. If in doubt, check the Chicago Manual of Style.

Rumple Foreskin

I checked in Strunk and found nuttin...which is okay, I always use okay...I hope that's okay.

 

[mjl2010]

According to Miriam Websters Online, okay is a variation of ok. Some time ago I saw another thread on this here somewhere, along with another pair of words. I looked but I can't find it. Apparently, ok and okay are not valid search words because they are too common or too short. Being it's one thirty am, I'm headed for bed.

Besides. Miss B. (high school English Teach) told us ok was preferred over okay. Of course, she didn't know a run on from a fragment so...

Just my .02.

MJL

 

[sr71plt]

Most U.S. publishers use the latest edition of the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (the 11th edition is the latest) as the authority for word spellings, rendering, and hyphenation (and the Chicago Manual of Style prefers this dictionary as well--7.1). And most of them prefer the first-listed spelling in that dictionary. In this case, it would be "OK."

I would have thought writers would be interested in what the publishing authorities advise--or why would they bother to ask? lol.

 

[Prophegy]

random historical fact

OK is actually a word coined during the election campaign of a US President. I forget which one but its from the early part of the 20th century. Its original form was O.K. I believe as it was an acronym. Far as its use in writing goes, I tend to prefer "ok" myself. But if your trying to be proper it would be best to go with the afore mentioned spellings listed in the dictionary.

 

[AsylumSeeker]

Okay...

It all boils down to taste. Much like T-shirt, t-shirt, Tee-shirt, and tee-shirt.

No love lost in the end.

As an editor I don't want to push my personal preferences on someone who is relying on an editor for correctness.

Thanks, ya'll.

 

[WhiteWave48]

OK, ok, okay

The editor course I attended recently enlightened me on this one. It seems 'OK', 'ok' and 'okay' are all acceptable according to taste, but never 'Ok'. Current trends mean we never see 'O.K.' anywhere (technically correct) so the initials by themselves have become an accepted word in use.

I have a preference for 'OK' because it looks better and sounds like the letters used.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, no, it doesn't all boil down to taste--as those who write for money for publishers will quickly (and sometimes painfully) find out. And this is why I double posted my posting. Publishing style isn't really a "blind leading the blind/any choice will do" proposition. Publishing really does have style rules and style authorities. And publishers really do use these--and they really do spend time and effort in standardization that makes readers comfortable and they really do not appreciate it when their writers won't learn to follow style so that the publisher's editors can concentrate on more fundamental things that might be going wrong in a manuscript.

In this case, the question was a good one, and there is a publishing industry standard answer to it. U.S. publishing leans heavily toward "OK," as arrived by an industry progression of standards (The most-used style authority for the humanities is the Chicago Manual of Style and for the sciences is APA style, both of which indicate a preference for the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary for spellings, renderings, and hyphenation, as well as for the first-listed spelling in that dictionary--which, in this case is "OK"). Authors can look this up just as easily as the publishers' editors can.

9 times out of 10 when you submit "Okay," "ok," or "O.K.," the publisher's editor is going to change it to "OK." So, what's the big deal about learning to render these things the way publishers have decided they are going to be in the first place--especially having already decided it's a question to ask?

No, publishers don't really determine style by an opinion poll taken of authors. They have standards--and these are based on ease of reading by the readers. If you want to be a published writer, why not just learn to render minutia the way it's going to wind up anyway?

Especially as you bothered to ask about it.

 

[Recidiva]

I've always used "okay"

I've never changed anything from OK to O.K. and when I've used those, I've been directed to change it to "okay." As an editor, proofreader and transcriptionist for years.

 

[Recidiva]

It all boils down to taste. Much like T-shirt, t-shirt, Tee-shirt, and tee-shirt.

No love lost in the end.

As an editor I don't want to push my personal preferences on someone who is relying on an editor for correctness.

Thanks, ya'll.

I've always been told T-shirt.

When I worked at Simon and Schuster they had in-house preferences, so that's what I'm used to.

If a different person wants something special, do that. If you write for yourself, let your editor know your preference. If you edit for someone, get to know their preferences.

I wasn't allowed to change Stephen King's "Damnit" to "Dammit" even though it bugged me.

It all depends on how much control you've had.

I've had clients only happy with fucked up final projects because of their misunderstanding of any number of guidelines and hard rules.

The final thing really is: Who is paying for it? They usually get the say.

 

[sr71plt]

T-shirt is another no brainer. It's right there in Webster's.

Is there some reason writers have to make life so difficult for themselves? Anyone out there own and use a dictionary?

 

[Recidiva]

Whether Ok, ok or OK, it's never okay. Spell it out. A fair number of agents/editors seem to dislike, ok, but I've never known any member of those tribes to object to, okay. If in doubt, check the Chicago Manual of Style.

Rumple Foreskin

I once had an discussion with an editor about why capital letter words are accompanied by apostrophes.

I argued that plural forms of A and B are not possessive, so it should be As and Bs. Then I looked at "As" and thought. Hm. Okay, I get it.

Same with okay. In dialogue if it's written out as "he okayed it" or "he okays it" it would have to be "O.K.'ed or OK's" That's plenty awkward enough to make a rule to spell things out.

Some of it has very practical reasons that may seem arbitrary, but with enough experience it becomes clear why several different people "arbitrarily" made the same choice over and over, thus becoming a style.

 

[sr71plt]

The plural of A and B in Chicago Manual of Style style is As and Bs. (7.15) (Same with APA style--3.28) Why isn't it just simpler to learn how to find out what the publishing style authority says it is rather than trying to reason it out or take a "blind leading the blind" vote--or rely on my friend's friend told him . . . ?

 

[Recidiva]

The plural of A and B in Chicago Manual of Style style is As and Bs. (7.15) (Same with APA style--3.28) Why isn't it just simpler to learn how to find out what the publishing style authority says it is rather than trying to reason it out or take a "blind leading the blind" vote--or rely on my friend's friend told him . . . ?

Well, that's why I argued so hard when I entered the medical transcription field and tried to get used to all the specifics for medical transcription. Why all the changes? It was hard for me to unlearn my old style to relearn the new one.

Such as: Metrics must be expressed in decimal and inches spelled out. cc never transcribed, mL always used.

A's and B's and As and Bs becomes more problematic if in a specific scientific notation. It makes a big difference when you're using a lot more numbers and headings that can get confused in shorthand. Particularly drugs and dosages have to be absolutely pristine, and that often includes acronyms. Their treatment is very specific to avoid the incorrect information being conveyed in writing.

So each field has it's own requirements. It helps for me to be able to think with it.

But truth be told the one I still can't wrap my head around is the follow-up and followup and follow up usage. Still makes me nuts. And people get very upset no matter what you use and it's misunderstood and misused all the time...but I digress.

Anyway, each specific venue has a specific requirement. And since I deal with doctors, who are much crazier than erotica writings, they'll spell drugs that don't exist and expect you to spell them out faithfully. And they pay the bills.

So it's different when real paychecks are involved. You do what they say, and if the rule doesn't make sense, do your best to understand why, so you'll catch it easier next time. If there's no logic to it, just...do your best.

 

[ninefe2dg]

'k

okee-dokee (w or w/o the hyphen)

I realize I'm probably not being very helpful, point is, do there really need to be "rules" here? Can't a person style be somewhat reflected in the liberties they take?

 

[Recidiva]

'k

okee-dokee (w or w/o the hyphen)

I realize I'm probably not being very helpful, point is, do there really need to be "rules" here? Can't a person style be somewhat reflected in the liberties they take?

(okey dokey, without the hyphen, as it's not modifying anything...sorry.)

You can do whatever you want, of course. I haven't had any of my stuff here edited by anyone, I just submit it and they approve it.

If you want to learn how to deal with audiences and editors before you become big and famous or lucrative, it helps to do more listening and agreeing on the little stuff so you can hold your ground on the big stuff, if it means a lot to you, then you really should have some references or precedents to use to back yourself up.

It's a bit like law. It's not really about justice, it's about perception.

 

[sr71plt]

First, you are absolutely right, Recidiva, that if the specific employer you work for wants his/her own rules, those are the rules to follow (for that employer's work). I have a publisher client list of over 25 mainline book publishers--each with a few quirks of its own, although it's a little surprising how much they all agree on. One of the real challenges is keeping track of which publisher has which quirk. (And British publishers have even more quirks, especially in spellings and punctuation--but most of them use the Chicago Manual of Style too.)

What this thread needs to deal with, though, is what's the safest thing to do when you are writing for submission without knowing any of the anomalies of a particular publisher's style who might contract your work.

The safest thing in the U.S. publishing industry is to follow the Chicago Manual of Style for humanities and APA for sciences (note that APA isn't as detailed as CMS,, and where it doesn't cover a topic, it defaults to the CMS).

The example you pose: "But truth be told the one I still can't wrap my head around is the follow-up and followup and follow up usage." doesn't have to give the writer a problem if he/she follows this safest route.

Under CMS style, the dictionary to use for spelling, rendering, and hyphenation is Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (it's actually the 3rd International Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, but--as CMS specifies--this is so large that almost no one owns one and the Collegiate Dictionary coordiates with the 3rd Internaitonal).

Using this dictionary, CMS style says to go with the first-listed spelling. Further, on hyphenation, it says, if a word isn't covered in this dictionary, render it as two words and don't hyphenate.

Thus, there need not be any mystery about "follow up" (or much of any other word rendering). The dictionary of choice says the noun and adjective forms are "follow-up" and the verb is "follow up."

The publishing industry has pointed the writer directly to the industry-preferred renderings. They do what they can to make it simple for the writer. Writers seem to do what they can to make it complicated.

 

[sr71plt]

*sigh* It's "okeydoke" (or, if you want to be cute, "okeydokey"). It's right there in Webster's.

Again, doesn't anyone here own and use a dictionary?

Is it really easier/better to go onto an Internet discussion board and ask a stranger (and usually get the wrong answer) then to buy a dictionary and use it?

And the problem, Recidiva, about engineering small stuff to agree with your publisher's editor on so you won't have to discuss the big stuff, is that you might end up with "turd" spelled right but with a character you use for important action in chapter 3 having been killed off in chapter 1 because your editor got focused on the minutia by your scheming and/or sloppiness and didn't have the time or energy to prevent your foot from jamming itself in your mouth with a real screamer in final print.

This isn't what professional writers do.

 

[Recidiva]

First, you are absolutely right, Recidiva, that if the specific employer you work for wants his/her own rules, those are the rules to follow (for that employer's work). I have a publisher client list of over 25 mainline book publishers--each with a few quirks of its own, although it's a little surprising how much they all agree on. One of the real challenges is keeping track of which publisher has which quirk. (And British publishers have even more quirks, especially in spellings and punctuation--but most of them use the Chicago Manual of Style too.)

What this thread needs to deal with, though, is what's the safest thing to do when you are writing for submission without knowing any of the anomalies of a particular publisher's style who might contract your work.

The safest thing in the U.S. publishing industry is to follow the Chicago Manual of Style for humanities and APA for sciences (note that APA isn't as detailed as CMS,, and where it doesn't cover a topic, it defaults to the CMS).

The example you pose: "But truth be told the one I still can't wrap my head around is the follow-up and followup and follow up usage." doesn't have to give the writer a problem if he/she follows this safest route.

Under CMS style, the dictionary to use for spelling, rendering, and hyphenation is Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (it's actually the 3rd International Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, but--as CMS specifies--this is so large that almost no one owns one and the Collegiate Dictionary coordiates with the 3rd Internaitonal).

Using this dictionary, CMS style says to go with the first-listed spelling. Further, on hyphenation, it says, if a word isn't covered in this dictionary, render it as two words and don't hyphenate.

Thus, there need not be any mystery about "follow up" (or much of any other word rendering). The dictionary of choice says the noun and adjective forms are "follow-up" and the verb is "follow up."

The publishing industry has pointed the writer directly to the industry-preferred renderings. They do what they can to make it simple for the writer. Writers seem to do what they can to make it complicated.

Yup, you'd think that. But medical transcriptionists have been fired in my line of work for using the term follow-up in any context and not being able to correct their style. Don't ask. There's a reason why it makes me nuts. The AAMT is another world from Chicago, where I started.

If you're writing for pure fun, do what you want. Find a flexible editor and ignore the nitpicking if the ins and outs of grammar hold no interest for you. But keep in mind it's of interest to others and if you screw it up, you'll be treated as if you're dancing on the graves of their ancestors. If you're writing for someone else, do what they say. If you get so famous that you can tell people to do anything and they have to say yes, don't be a dick about it.

 

[Recidiva]

*sigh* It's "okeydoke" (or, if you want to be cute, "okeydokey"). It's right there in Webster's.

Again, doesn't anyone here own and use a dictionary?

Is it really easier/better to go onto an Internet discussion board and ask a stranger (and usually get the wrong answer) then to buy a dictionary and use it?

And the problem, Recidiva, about engineering small stuff to agree with your publisher's editor on so you won't have to discuss the big stuff, is that you might end up with "turd" spelled right but with a character you use for important action in chapter 3 having been killed off in chapter 1 because your editor got focused on the minutia by your scheming and/or sloppiness and didn't have the time or energy to prevent your foot from jamming itself in your mouth with a real screamer in final print.

This isn't what professional writers do.

Oh Lordy, professional writers often do that and infinitely worse. That's why it has to go through a huge long process of editing, proofreading, typesetting and proofreading again. To put it in so many hands that one single person isn't responsible for catching everything.

 

[sr71plt]

"Oh Lordy, professional writers often do that and infinitely worse."

Not after the first time they've had a screwup in important content in their printed work and it's pointed out that the publisher takes credit for whatever they fix but does not accept blame for anything that remained consistently incorrect from when the author first wrote it.

Been there/done that many times for the past decade.