• Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

The iPad of Words

September 25, 2011, 12:18 pm

OK is the iPad of words.

When Steve Jobs unveiled the first iPad in January 2010, it wasn’t in response to a call for “filling a gap” in computer technology. There were laptops and smartphones already. Who needed something in between?

It turned out that many people realized that they did. In barely a year and a half, the in-between device has become the main device for millions of people who discovered that they preferred something bigger than a smartphone but lighter than a laptop. Nowadays it’s hard to imagine the world of Internet communication without it.

Similarly, when Charles Gordon Greene invented the first “o. k.—all correct” for the Boston Morning Post of March 23, 1839, it wasn’t in response to a call for filling a gap in the English language. There were many ways to indicate approval already. Who needed an expression that would convey acceptance without opinion? (Greene himself certainly hadn’t thought so; he was an accidental inventor, not a deliberate one like Jobs.)

Nevertheless, Greene’s creation likewise filled an unimagined gap. Nowadays it’s hard to imagine the world of human communication without OK.

Why is that?

After all, we can do without OK. Before 1839, everyone did. And even nowadays, we generally avoid it in formal speech and writing. But in conversation, as we negotiate our way through the day, we often employ volleys of OK.

That’s because OK is short, distinctive, and above all blessedly neutral. It withholds judgment. Neither enthusiastic nor grudging, OK simply signifies agreement: “Lunch at Blu Moon in Ludington, OK?” “OK.”

We discovered we needed that: something that doesn’t let different degrees of enthusiasm get in the way.

OK has developed other uses too. Speakers use it to call an audience to attention: “OK, please turn off your cellphones now,” or to alert their listeners that a summary, or a new topic, is coming: “OK, now let’s consider the impact of iPad on felines.”

And with the mantra of the only famous OK quotation, “I’m OK, you’re OK,” the title of a 1960s book by Thomas A. Harris, OK has become the voice of tolerance and diversity. We’ve mostly forgotten what that book was about (transactional analysis—you can look it up), or even that the sentiment comes from that book, but because of it we’re ready to say “You’re OK” even if you’re different from me—even if you’re of a different color or religion, even if you speak a different language, even if you’re a Democrat and I’m a Republican, or a Tea Partyer, or a teetotaler.

Its usefulness has made OK America’s greatest word, and not only that. It’s the world’s greatest word. It’s the only word in any language that has spread to almost all other languages. So even in remote regions of the world, where English isn’t the lingua franca, you can make yourself understood with OK.

OK? Check it out on your iPad!

This entry was posted in Words. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • josgirl13

    Scrabble doesn’t accept “OK” as a word (darn it). Perhaps its dictionary considers it an abbreviation of “oll korrect,” which is how I understand the derivation. Can you tell us a bit more about Charles Gordon Greene and his “invention” of the great international word/nonword?

    • allan_metcalf

      OK – Read all about it in the book linked from my bio (at right), or go to: OKDayMarch23 on Facebook!

  • http://twitter.com/jistudents JOI Students

    “OK” has become close to everyday life. Do you think your speech would be alright without “OK”? How many OKs do you say in a day? I think we need another research on that? How many times does it occur in our TV shows, movies?

    How is it used in other languages? Does it have similar meaning when get it translated? For me in Nepali language, it could be “la la” for OK. Let me know if it is the WRONG!!

    I guess we should study in detail, and email me other research on OKs at center.asu@gmail.com

  • Guest

    A-OK to add a touch  of non-neutrality.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Marrou/100001026744729 Chris Marrou

    But whence comes “oll korrekt”? The spelling makes it seem Germanic, but in German the term would be (literally) “ganz richtig.” Why would OK have appeared at all? The only thing I can compare is the term “MOS” used in early Hollywood and TV, which meant “mit out sound,” a faux Germanism for silent video (in recent years, MOS has become “man on the street,” meaning video of passersby giving their opinions of a major story).

  • http://www.facebook.com/jgrobelny Joe Grobelny

    Brian, I’m not hatin’ on you, but when you categorize humanities folks as clueless fuddy-duddies, i’m going to let you know it’s not OK.

    Brian Mathews ‏ @brianmathews:
    @JGrobelny @charbooth humanists still upset we ditched card catalog. The future is “reading across materials” not just one artifact at time

    Joe Grobelny Joe Grobelny ‏ @JGrobelny
    @brianmathews @charbooth on both counts, i find that to be untrue of many humanists (DH, for example). haters gonna hate!

    2h Brian Mathews Brian Mathews ‏ @brianmathews
    @JGrobelny @charbooth hate away, I rise above it. I dabble with new things, but “tradition” is very noble– good luck with your efforts

    6m Joe Grobelny Joe Grobelny ‏ @JGrobelny
    @brianmathews you’re hatin’ on humanities folks. digital technologies are artifacts used to work. can’t get away from materiality!

  • http://twitter.com/brianmathews Brian Mathews

    Joe. I was being sarcastic. I consider myself “humanities” folks. I love the humanities and many grads and faculty from those disciplines have shared interest in our digital future. In fact, a VT historian asked me a few weeks ago how the library will evolve in ten years as more scholarly content goes digital — he wants us to offer a digital humanities space– so yeah, I just wanted to flip back to you and say that not all humanities folks are obsessed with print. I think the future of scholarly info is on the verge of new paradigms. Let’s embrace and celebrate that!

    Thanks for taking the time to read my blog and twitter. Maybe give me paper a read too? It might not work for you and that’s cool– but I’ve been getting a lot of positive feedback from librarians around the world on this topic– so it resonates– change is happening man, the iceberg is melting.

    Have a good weekend and best of luck to you and your library.

  • mbelvadi

    I think you’re confusing “creating something new” with “trying something new”. True startups typically create something that is actually really new, something patentable or copyrightable for instance.  Academic libraries are rarely creating anything new in that sense, but are often trying out ideas and services that are “new” to themselves, but not to the world at large.   Libraries who do actually create entirely new things also usually do so as an addition to their existing traditional services, not in complete replacement of everything they did before.  We don’t call a company that adds a new product line a “startup”.

    In fact, academic librarians are so conservative generally (original meaning not partisan one), that simply deciding to subscribe to a major “new” product like a ‘discovery’ service from a commercial vendor, or trying out a patron-driven acquisition (PDA) method of selecting books on any significant scale is considered bold and radical by those who propose such changes within their institutions.

    Libraries are in fact so deeply interwoven into the academic life of a university that it would be reckless for any library director to actually try to take the kinds of risks with the entire library organization implied by a startup analogy.  A large percentage of startups fail completely, and where would that leave your university if the library did that?

    • http://twitter.com/brianmathews Brian Mathews

      Thanks for your feedback. Good luck with your endeavors.

  • http://twitter.com/lkamsin lkamsin

    Brilliant paper. thought provoking & hopefully, idea/creativity provoking. Worries re: what if it fails? Well, let’s see if a course/program fails then it goes away & is replaced by something “better: What’s wrong with adapting to meet the demand/needs? What’s wrong with a better Library?

  • The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037