It's fairly common to refer to someone whose ideas are unorthodox as a "kook." Is the term eponymous for Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (or Kok), a rabbi in Jerusalem prior to the establishment of the modern state of Israel? If so, why?
Looking at the definitions linked in OneLook, most dictionaries describe it as mid-20th century US slang. Several suggest it is a shortening of cuckoo.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
|I, too, go with the dictionaries with this one. However, I did find quite an interesting site, The Kooks Museum, which contains a diverting theory linking it with the surfing term "kook" (meaning a complete newbie) and a "Kukai Canyon" in Malibu. Scroll down to "Note on the origin of the word "kook".
The rest of the site looks quite amusing so I've bookmarked it and will take another look later.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
OED's first citation for kookie, kooky or kook is: "1959Motion Pictures Aug. 32/1 Get set for some far-out talk on teen-age romance by the kookiest cat in town -- Edd Byrnes." Why was Byrnes considered "kookie" in 1959? Well, see what you get when you google up Byrnes kookie "1959" (or omit the Byrnes), and go from there. (You'll need the quote marks because without them, Google will ignore digits.)
By the way, here's something that may make you pause before accepting OED's story. According to OED:
kookiederives fromkook (which is "prob. abbrev. of CUCKOO adj. or noun" [my emph.], but
kookie (1959) predateskook (Aug. 1960 for first cite) by a full year. So which is it: is kookie the earlier form, or the later?
kookie (1959) predates kook (Aug. 1960 for first cite) by a full year.
What difference does that make? Slang terms are rarely written down for several years after their first appearance. A difference of just one year is immaterial.
I agree, though, that the character played by Edd Byrnes does seem to have the hallmarks of a proto-kook, so your idea does seem appealing. However, what if the word was already in use and the writers simply named him with that in mind? Don't forget that the OED quote you mention calls him "the kookiest cat in town". They'd hardly do that if the word weren't already in use.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I'll suggest again what I suggested above. "Kooky" as an adjective came about as a variant of "cuckoo", a term for crazy that I think has been around a long time (when I have time at the weekend I'll do my research on this).
Kook, I think, was probably a back formation fromm kooky formed because it's common to make adjectives from nouns by adding a "y" so there is a tendency to believe that if something is ****y then there must be a **** that it is like.
There is no reason at all that the adjective can't precede the noun.
FWIW I also agree with everything arnie said about that particular eponym theory.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
Having lived through the era in which the TV show, "77 Sunset Strip" aired (Kooky was one of its characters) I can assure you that the term was already common as meaning an oddball.
If we can't trust the detailed historical research of the OED, what can we trust?
We are all human, even the editors of the OED. They openly admit they make mistakes, and they correct them when given the correct data. We have found several here and have alerted them; political football is one that comes to mind. Surely no one here is saying the OED is unreliable or mediocre. It is well-respected here and our gold standard.
quote:
Having lived through the era in which the TV show, "77 Sunset Strip" aired (Kooky was one of its characters) I can assure you that the term was already common as meaning an oddball.
Asa, if that's the case, find a source where the word was used before 1959. The OED doesn't cite one, and I am sure they'd love to get something earlier, if it exists. Until that, I have to go along with Wordnerd on this one. Wordnerd, I'd suggest you contact the OED editors.
Can you be specific, Asa? Surely, with Wordnerd's theory, it could be cited in 1958, too, because that's when 77 Sunset Strip started. Was your citation before 1958?
This is off subject, but what does your signature say, Goofy? That's a great one! Are those letters available by going to programs/accessories/system tools/character map? If not, how did you get them?
Originally posted by Kalleh: This is off subject, but what does your signature say, Goofy? That's a great one! Are those letters available by going to programs/accessories/system tools/character map? If not, how did you get them?
The script is Devanāgarī and it's Sanskrit for "totally awesome". I don't know how you type non-Latin characters on Windows, but this is a good source for the Mac.
Originally posted by Kalleh: Can you be specific, Asa? Surely, with Wordnerd's theory, it could be cited in 1958, too, because that's when 77 Sunset Strip started. Was your citation before 1958?
Mind if I jump in, Asa? I too remember that the word was already in common usage among school kids when it was used on 77 Sunset Strip. Found just a couple of quotes in a Google book search.
“MACK (Talking half to Danny—half to himself.) Why can’t ya get a break? I don’t know what it is, but ya can’t get one lousy, stinkin’ break. Morrison’s wrong! Readin’ books don’t help. Goin’ ta college won’t help. You’re born a bum, ya grow up a bum, that’s what ya are! There’s no helpin’ it—ya can’t change—they won’t let ya change. What’s so special about me, anyway? Nothin’! There’s nothin’ special. Morrison’s a nut—he’s just a nutty, screwy teacher like all the rest—a kook. Christ! Why didn’t we stay put? Nobody really looks at ya. They don’t really see ya. Ya tell ‘em you’re goin’ to college and they laugh…” Five in Judgement, a play in one act by Douglas Taylor, Published 1956, Dramatists Play Service, Inc., ISBN 0822204045, Page 18
SIDNEY. Hey, kook. You know you’re a kook? Like a coo-coo. A kook. One minute you knife me, then you kiss me. What do you, love me or hate me? SHIRL. (Crosses and sits sofa.) I’m a kook. You like kooks? A Hole in the Head: A Comedy in Two Acts, By Arnold Schulman, Published 1957 New York: S. French, Page 51
Posts: 2605 | Location: As they say at 101.5FM: Not New York... Not Philadelphia... PROUD TO BE NEW JERSEY!
Well! I just finished writing a long post, bristling with citation, and was about to copy it from my word processor. But beth, it looks like my research was (ahem) "at best incomplete".
KOOK AFTERTHOUGHT I've been pondering the fact that for all my combing, I only came up with those two little plays. It's interesting to think of how slowly (relative to now) pop-culture slang moved from the street into media. I'm thinking, it's not just because they 'didn't have the internet'. Though hardly anyone had TV's yet in 1956, there were plenty of radio shows. I'm thinking there was also a certain formality then, and much more concern about what was 'proper fare' for the public. Figures that street slang would first show up in small & perhaps what we would now call 'arty' plays.This message has been edited. Last edited by: bethree5,
Posts: 2605 | Location: As they say at 101.5FM: Not New York... Not Philadelphia... PROUD TO BE NEW JERSEY!
A very good point, bethree. I think you are right; an author felt constrained at the time to avoid slang and write "proper" English. I suspect that theatre-goers, in particular, were mostly solid middle-class citizens who wouldn't have heard much slang usage anyway.
In the UK, the advent of the "Angry Young Men" group of playwrights and novelists, such as John Osborne, in the late 1950s and early 1960s began to change that state of affairs. The BBC, of course, was a famously po-faced Auntie who would never dream of using slang.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Yes, I agree. When you speak of more formal times, people used to dress up to go to movies or when traveling on an airplane. It is interesting how times have changed.
In John Reith's times, BBC news announcers would wear dinner jackets (tuxedos) when reading the evening news.
Although this seems quaint nowadays (after all, this was radio!) it was logical by the formalities of the era. People of that status would wear dinner jackets to semi-formal evening events (as opposed to full evening dress for fully formal events) and John Reith's logic was that, when important people came to visit the BBC, they would expect those working in senior capacities to be dressed in a manner appropriate to their status and the occasion.
Richard English
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
People of that status would wear dinner jackets to semi-formal evening events (as opposed to full evening dress for fully formal events) and John Reith's logic was that, when important people came to visit the BBC, they would expect those working in senior capacities to be dressed in a manner appropriate to their status and the occasion.
This makes me almost nostalgic. (I said almost)! Although Americans of the '50's were famously casual by comparison to the English & 'Continentals', anyone who was in "a club" (i.e., yacht club or country club), or who traveled on cruises or to resorts was well aware of the drill. As RE points out, hierarchy was involved, I would venture in an almost military way. As so often happens here, what started as a class distinction across the pond got translated literally to matters of cash. After all, who else but the moneyed could afford several changes of clothes per day?!
I come from an academic clan, which never had much cash, but we were taught how to buy a dinner jacket with a 40-yr half-life!
Posts: 2605 | Location: As they say at 101.5FM: Not New York... Not Philadelphia... PROUD TO BE NEW JERSEY!
or who traveled on cruises or to resorts was well aware of the drill.
It's still quite possible (should you choose so to do) to take a cruise where black tie dinners are the norm. I was on one such only 18 months ago and enjoyed the formality greatly.
Richard English
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
In America, for my generation (post-boom, proto-X) and class (geek), dinner jackets (monkey-suits) are generally worn only to proms and weddings. A friend recently won a Technical Academy Award and said the best part was wearing a tuxedo to the awards ceremony.
Don't forget concerts! My dh, a keyboardist, took up sax this yr & now wears a tux every couple of months to perform with a concert band. I myself annually don the female version of a monkey suit (complete w/pintucked shirt) for the local oratorio singers' performance.
p.s. oh, those cruises! my best friend & I were the only girls in school who knew how to foxtrot in rock n roll days-- courtesy of her prof dad's periodic sabbaticals abroad; they always traveled via a Dutch freighter & things were very formal! No 'twisting' allowed!
Posts: 2605 | Location: As they say at 101.5FM: Not New York... Not Philadelphia... PROUD TO BE NEW JERSEY!
