Is it OK to say okay?

[Keith Ward]

I like okay, my editor likes OK. According to the thesaurus both are acceptable. Does anyone have a preference?   

[Cathleen]

I prefer okay because I think it's less noticeable when it's not in all caps.

But for the love of God and fluffy little kittens, don't use ok. I've gotten to the point that I close the book and rarely return to it. My TBR pile is big enough.

[spin52]

I use OK, but I can't see that it makes too much difference, as long as you're consistent. And as long as you're not writing fiction set in a period of history where it wouldn't be said at all.

[Maggie Ann]

I use OK, but I can't see that it makes too much difference, as long as you're consistent. And as long as you're not writing fiction set in a period of history where it wouldn't be said at all.

I was surprised to find out that okay has been around since the mid-19th century. I was reading a book that used it and I thought it shouldn't be in that time period. I would have put it sometime in the 20th century. But I looked it up and it was in common usage quite a bit before that.

I like okay. OK is kind of intrusive.

[VanessaC]

From a reader perspective, I'm fine with either version as long as you're consistent - pick one or the other.

If I'm writing I would tend to use OK, because that feels more familiar, and, hey, it's fewer letters to type. 

[angela]

OK looks awkward in the page, so I use okay. But I try not to use it much, as it can become a filler word in everyone's dialog, like "well" and "oh"

[Bill Hiatt]

My editors have always said that OK is the form preferred by The Chicago Manual of Style, but in fact the 17th edition doesn't say anything about it one way or the other, at least not that I can find--and neither form is in the index, which strongly suggests the text doesn't differentiate. Nor is there any listing in the word usage section, where one would expect to find it. Also, see here: https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/YouCouldLookItUp/faq0014.html. Both forms are listed as acceptable, with some caveats. I would have just posted that link and called it a day, except that when I looked for examples, they weren't in the 17th edition either, at least not at the spots described by the poster, so I think they must come from an earlier edition.

[PJ Post]

Okay.

Using the abbreviation reminds me of computer shorthand, such as 'UR' or 'U2' or 'LOL' or 'IIRC' or \m/. I wouldn't use AKA, IE, EG or anything similar in fiction, either. We don't use XLR8 for accelerate or XTC for ecstasy, right? It's a word - write it out.

~ \mm/

[Tafkal]

Okay.

Using the abbreviation reminds me of computer shorthand, such as 'UR' or 'U2' or 'LOL' or 'IIRC' or \m/. I wouldn't use AKA, IE, EG or anything similar in fiction, either. We don't use XLR8 for accelerate or XTC for ecstasy, right? It's a word - write it out.

~ \mm/

OK was originally a humorous alteration of the letters for "All Correct" and as such was OK before it ever became okay.

[PJ Post]

Okay.

Using the abbreviation reminds me of computer shorthand, such as 'UR' or 'U2' or 'LOL' or 'IIRC' or \m/. I wouldn't use AKA, IE, EG or anything similar in fiction, either. We don't use XLR8 for accelerate or XTC for ecstasy, right? It's a word - write it out.

~ \mm/

OK was originally a humorous alteration of the letters for "All Correct" and as such was OK before it ever became okay.

You made me look up the etymology, so good on you...but it's not 1840, and books aren't political posters. It's a word now, just like 'ain't' and 'adorbs' and even 'ribbie' for RBI - and words should be spelled out. Oh...and get off my lawn while UR at it. 

[Becca Mills]

I like okay. OK is kind of intrusive.

I feel this way too. In general, I try to minimize capitalization.

[Bill Hiatt]

Okay.

Using the abbreviation reminds me of computer shorthand, such as 'UR' or 'U2' or 'LOL' or 'IIRC' or \m/. I wouldn't use AKA, IE, EG or anything similar in fiction, either. We don't use XLR8 for accelerate or XTC for ecstasy, right? It's a word - write it out.

~ \mm/

OK was originally a humorous alteration of the letters for "All Correct" and as such was OK before it ever became okay.

You made me look up the etymology, so good on you...but it's not 1840, and books aren't political posters. It's a word now, just like 'ain't' and 'adorbs' and even 'ribbie' for RBI - and words should be spelled out. Oh...and get off my lawn while UR at it. 

I agree with you in general, but I'd make an exception for dialog and perhaps first-person narration. People use OK and some others, like FYI and AKA, in conversation. Of course, you could use okay in conversation as well, but it's clear there's no overall standard that requires that. As publishers, of course, we can have our own style sheets, and, as long as we apply them consistently, that's fine.

For the record, Webster's unabridged has no listing for okay. It does for OK (which begins "OK or okay...") Both are acceptable, but it's interesting that OK is the primary listing. Something similar is alluded to in the post I linked above.

[Rosie Scott]

I've always used okay. I've never seen OK used in any book I've read so this thread actually opened my eyes to the fact some authors like it. You learn something new everyday!

[Post-Doctorate D]

I (think I) use "okay."  I would use "O.K." in dialogue if the character was saying it like Ooh-kay with a slight hesitation between letters.

[Maggie Ann]

What about 'kay or mm-kay or even k?

[LilyBLily]

It really depends on the character you're writing. Despite the word's origin, "okay" is more formal usage today. So if you have a person who talks like a text (please don't do that for more than one character!), sure, use "OK." But know that it's less intelligible. Formal usage is generally easier to read.

[antares]

If you are writing about the postal abbreviation for Oklahoma, use OK. In all other cases, use okay. Okay?

I like okay, my editor likes OK. According to the thesaurus both are acceptable. Does anyone have a preference?

[David VanDyke]

I prefer okay because I think it's less noticeable when it's not in all caps.

But for the love of God and fluffy little kittens, don't use ok. I've gotten to the point that I close the book and rarely return to it. My TBR pile is big enough.

Seconded. Can't tell you how unfortunately many times I see people write "ok."

[Writer]

Your editor is the opposite of mine. I used to use OK, but my editors were always changing it to okay. So I learned to use okay in fiction and reserve OK for text messages.

[Becca Mills]

What about 'kay or mm-kay or even k?

In dialogue? Sure! Not sure about spelling  ... m'kay, maybe??

[Captain Cranky]

Reading OK in a book would bug me personally. Whether it is technically correct or not, to me it doesn't look like it belongs and like PJ POst said, reminds me too much of texting/internet shorthand. (Side note-my brother uses kk instead of OK when messaging me and now my mother has picked up the habit-don't get me started on that one!).

If it were me, I would stick with okay unless you're including a text or something similar in your book where it would be more appropriate. Or whatever floats your boat 

[Keith Ward]

Okay, thanks. I'm going to stick with okay. 

[DrewMcGunn]

I use okay. But only in dialogue.

My current series is set in the mid 19th century. I avoided its usage until the story hit the mid-1840s, and let it creep into dialogue through the younger characters.

As a reader, one of my pet peeves is seeing its use in stories set before the mid-19th century or any fantasy.

Of course, another pet peeve of mine is seeing the f-word used as a modifier in pre-20th-century stories.

[Maggie Ann]

I use okay. But only in dialogue.

My current series is set in the mid 19th century. I avoided its usage until the story hit the mid-1840s, and let it creep into dialogue through the younger characters.

As a reader, one of my pet peeves is seeing its use in stories set before the mid-19th century or any fantasy.

Of course, another pet peeve of mine is seeing the f-word used as a modifier in pre-20th-century stories.

My favorite use of the f-word was in a story set in ancient Egypt. It was so ridiculous, I had to laugh.

[Tom Wood]

...

My favorite use of the f-word was in a story set in ancient Egypt. It was so ridiculous, I had to laugh.

Twitter fun:

https://twitter.com/thorpeta17/status/1095023005707702277

[Maggie Ann]

...

My favorite use of the f-word was in a story set in ancient Egypt. It was so ridiculous, I had to laugh.

Twitter fun:

https://twitter.com/thorpeta17/status/1095023005707702277

 

[VanessaC]

Was just typing a post on this forum and typed "ok" without even thinking about it.  Which way to the dungeon?  I'll just show myself there ... 

[Bill Hiatt]

This just goes to show that I should ignore my editors more often.  Now I'm more or less stuck with OK, unless I want to go back through all my old novels and change all the instances of OK to okay. Something is telling me I'm not going to spend the time doing that.

[idontknowyet]

This confuses me.

Language isn't static. We create and shape language everyday. Words are words because we use them.  I get in this forum that many people are not just college educated, but have a degree in English of some sort. This makes me wonder if people sometimes lose track of what happening in the real world.

Comments like I return a book or stop reading if there are x amount of mistakes confuse me. I get it for writers/editors mistakes must drive you nuts, but in general I don't care what editors think. Most readers aren't editors.  People want to read something that makes sense to them. I don't care if you write okay or ok or Ok. OK looks like you are shouting so I hope that's your intent if not most of your readers are now confused. Keeping up with current language norms would seem to be more important than making sure you have everything correct according to the current manual that only editor and English majors have read.

[Phronk]

I’m going to write a story with a character named Ok (rhymes with lock) just to confuse everyone.

[Gerri Attrick]

I use okay. But only in dialogue.

My current series is set in the mid 19th century. I avoided its usage until the story hit the mid-1840s, and let it creep into dialogue through the younger characters.

As a reader, one of my pet peeves is seeing its use in stories set before the mid-19th century or any fantasy.

Of course, another pet peeve of mine is seeing the f-word used as a modifier in pre-20th-century stories.

My favorite use of the f-word was in a story set in ancient Egypt. It was so ridiculous, I had to laugh.

Well, they probably had a word for it. It’s not as if we invented sex, or bad language, in the 1960s

[She-la-te-da]

I write okay in my fiction, and I prefer others use that form, even in dialog. OK is okay for message boards or texting, but not for "proper" writing. And yes, I know either is accepted, but we were asked our preferences.

[Jeff Tanyard]

I write okay in my fiction, and I prefer others use that form, even in dialog. OK is okay for message boards or texting, but not for "proper" writing. And yes, I know either is accepted, but we were asked our preferences.

This is my opinion, too.

[TinkSaid]

In my mind, ok is pronounced oak and jars slightly - I wouldn't throw the book across the room, but for me, okay provides a better reading experience.


YMMV.

[Bill Hiatt]

This confuses me.

Language isn't static. We create and shape language everyday. Words are words because we use them.  I get in this forum that many people are not just college educated, but have a degree in English of some sort. This makes me wonder if people sometimes lose track of what happening in the real world.

Comments like I return a book or stop reading if there are x amount of mistakes confuse me. I get it for writers/editors mistakes must drive you nuts, but in general I don't care what editors think. Most readers aren't editors.  People want to read something that makes sense to them. I don't care if you write okay or ok or Ok. OK looks like you are shouting so I hope that's your intent if not most of your readers are now confused. Keeping up with current language norms would seem to be more important than making sure you have everything correct according to the current manual that only editor and English majors have read.

It's true that language evolves and that what is considered correct today may be incorrect in the future and vice versa. Also, in English there is no one authority that dictates usage. If you look around enough, you will find that even grammar texts differ on some usage points. Dictionaries also differ on spelling occasionally. Sigh!

That said, I'm curious what the source is for the feeling that okay is more proper than OK. As I pointed out above, CMOS in its latest iteration doesn't take a position one way or the other, but Webster's Unabridged shows a preference for OK. At the other end of the spectrum in terms of dependability, Wikipedia also shows a preference for OK (with okay listed as an acceptable variant spelling). Dictionary.com (based on Random House Unabridged, defines okay as meaning OK and then launches a much more extensive definition for OK on the same page. A usage note gives only a slight preference to okay: "Few Americanisms have been more successful than ok, which survived the political campaign of 1840 that fostered it, quickly lost its political significance, and went on to develop use as a verb, adverb, noun, and interjection. The expression was well known in England by the 1880s. Today ok has achieved worldwide recognition and use. It occurs in all but the most formal speech and writing." I wouldn't count novels in general as the most formal possible writing. Anyone have an authoritative source that gives a clearer preference to okay? What little I can find seems to be neutral or to lean the other way.

(As a reader, I'm not concerned with minor usage points like that and wouldn't hold either usage against an author. I'm just curious what sources people use in forming their ideas of correctness.)

[cecilia_writer]

I've been baffled by this thread because I always use OK and wouldn't consider okay correct, but I thought this might be one of these USA/UK differences and actually as a reader it doesn't really bother me anyway.

[idontknowyet]

This confuses me.

Language isn't static. We create and shape language everyday. Words are words because we use them.  I get in this forum that many people are not just college educated, but have a degree in English of some sort. This makes me wonder if people sometimes lose track of what happening in the real world.

Comments like I return a book or stop reading if there are x amount of mistakes confuse me. I get it for writers/editors mistakes must drive you nuts, but in general I don't care what editors think. Most readers aren't editors.  People want to read something that makes sense to them. I don't care if you write okay or ok or Ok. OK looks like you are shouting so I hope that's your intent if not most of your readers are now confused. Keeping up with current language norms would seem to be more important than making sure you have everything correct according to the current manual that only editor and English majors have read.

It's true that language evolves and that what is considered correct today may be incorrect in the future and vice versa. Also, in English there is no one authority that dictates usage. If you look around enough, you will find that even grammar texts differ on some usage points. Dictionaries also differ on spelling occasionally. Sigh!

That said, I'm curious what the source is for the feeling that okay is more proper than OK. As I pointed out above, CMOS in its latest iteration doesn't take a position one way or the other, but Webster's Unabridged shows a preference for OK. At the other end of the spectrum in terms of dependability, Wikipedia also shows a preference for OK (with okay listed as an acceptable variant spelling). Dictionary.com (based on Random House Unabridged, defines okay as meaning OK and then launches a much more extensive definition for OK on the same page. A usage note gives only a slight preference to okay: "Few Americanisms have been more successful than ok, which survived the political campaign of 1840 that fostered it, quickly lost its political significance, and went on to develop use as a verb, adverb, noun, and interjection. The expression was well known in England by the 1880s. Today ok has achieved worldwide recognition and use. It occurs in all but the most formal speech and writing." I wouldn't count novels in general as the most formal possible writing. Anyone have an authoritative source that gives a clearer preference to okay? What little I can find seems to be neutral or to lean the other way.

(As a reader, I'm not concerned with minor usage points like that and wouldn't hold either usage against an author. I'm just curious what sources people use in forming their ideas of correctness.)

That's kind of my point. I'm not using a text as a reference.

Common usage of the word that I have seen most of my life including through high school and college  is ok rarely okay and never OK unless you are shouting at someone.

All caps words in common language now infers shouting or emphatic speech. Majority of readers first response will be that the person in your book is shouting OK when all caps are used.

Yes, there will be people that understand OK and okay are exactly the same but many other won't.

[Bill Hiatt]

I've been baffled by this thread because I always use OK and wouldn't consider okay correct, but I thought this might be one of these USA/UK differences and actually as a reader it doesn't really bother me anyway.

Some of the sources I've looked at suggest that OK is US English, so maybe okay is preferable in British English. I don't know for sure, though.

[Bill Hiatt]

This confuses me.

Language isn't static. We create and shape language everyday. Words are words because we use them.  I get in this forum that many people are not just college educated, but have a degree in English of some sort. This makes me wonder if people sometimes lose track of what happening in the real world.

Comments like I return a book or stop reading if there are x amount of mistakes confuse me. I get it for writers/editors mistakes must drive you nuts, but in general I don't care what editors think. Most readers aren't editors.  People want to read something that makes sense to them. I don't care if you write okay or ok or Ok. OK looks like you are shouting so I hope that's your intent if not most of your readers are now confused. Keeping up with current language norms would seem to be more important than making sure you have everything correct according to the current manual that only editor and English majors have read.

It's true that language evolves and that what is considered correct today may be incorrect in the future and vice versa. Also, in English there is no one authority that dictates usage. If you look around enough, you will find that even grammar texts differ on some usage points. Dictionaries also differ on spelling occasionally. Sigh!

That said, I'm curious what the source is for the feeling that okay is more proper than OK. As I pointed out above, CMOS in its latest iteration doesn't take a position one way or the other, but Webster's Unabridged shows a preference for OK. At the other end of the spectrum in terms of dependability, Wikipedia also shows a preference for OK (with okay listed as an acceptable variant spelling). Dictionary.com (based on Random House Unabridged, defines okay as meaning OK and then launches a much more extensive definition for OK on the same page. A usage note gives only a slight preference to okay: "Few Americanisms have been more successful than ok, which survived the political campaign of 1840 that fostered it, quickly lost its political significance, and went on to develop use as a verb, adverb, noun, and interjection. The expression was well known in England by the 1880s. Today ok has achieved worldwide recognition and use. It occurs in all but the most formal speech and writing." I wouldn't count novels in general as the most formal possible writing. Anyone have an authoritative source that gives a clearer preference to okay? What little I can find seems to be neutral or to lean the other way.

(As a reader, I'm not concerned with minor usage points like that and wouldn't hold either usage against an author. I'm just curious what sources people use in forming their ideas of correctness.)

That's kind of my point. I'm not using a text as a reference.

Common usage of the word that I have seen most of my life including through high school and college  is ok rarely okay and never OK unless you are shouting at someone.

All caps words in common language now infers shouting or emphatic speech. Majority of readers first response will be that the person in your book is shouting OK when all caps are used.

Yes, there will be people that understand OK and okay are exactly the same but many other won't.

So you'd vote for lowercase ok? I think I missed that earlier in the thread. I've never seen that in a print source. No own instinct, before having OK beaten into me by my editors, was okay.

The point about shouting makes more sense in the context of a whole sentence being upper-cased, or perhaps if OK is presented in a single-word sentence. I doubt many people would think it's shouting if it's the single uppercase word in a sentence. That's partly because both acronyms and abbreviations of capitalized names are presented that way. No one assume a character is shouting if the character uses UCLA, US, UN, or something like that. (Of course, in the old days periods separated the letters, just as they did in OK, but the periods gradually dropped out.)

[okey dokey]

OK originated in the South (USA) where folks try to eliminate unnecessary motion, including speech.

When in doubt, you can say "okey dokey."
But don't shorten that to od which has another meaning.

[DrewMcGunn]

This confuses me.

Language isn't static. We create and shape language everyday. Words are words because we use them.  I get in this forum that many people are not just college educated, but have a degree in English of some sort. This makes me wonder if people sometimes lose track of what happening in the real world.

Comments like I return a book or stop reading if there are x amount of mistakes confuse me. I get it for writers/editors mistakes must drive you nuts, but in general I don't care what editors think. Most readers aren't editors.  People want to read something that makes sense to them. I don't care if you write okay or ok or Ok. OK looks like you are shouting so I hope that's your intent if not most of your readers are now confused. Keeping up with current language norms would seem to be more important than making sure you have everything correct according to the current manual that only editor and English majors have read.

I know several others have responded, and I weighed in earlier. But (there's always a but in there somewhere, right? Ok.) one of the reasons I prefer okay instead of ok, is the same reason I when I'm writing dialoge I don't write 42. Instead I write forty-two. When I'm not using dialog, I tend to follow the Chicago manual of style on numbers. Also, unless I'm in a character's head, emoting a thought, I don't use any version of ok in non-dialoge.

But I concede this is a stylistic choice, not a hard and fast rule. Also, this comes from a perspective in writing 3rd person. If I were writing in first person, I'd likely do things differently depending on the MC's voice.

[SMcClain]

I've actually switched from 'OK' in my first three novels to now writing 'okay'. I think that came about from sending emails at work as 'OK' stood out - very much obtrusive as per earlier in the thread. Didn't bother me when I was writing at home, though.

[Keith Ward]

What about hand signals?  I'm writing a part about a scuba diver. The diver uses his hand to give the - Ok, OK, or Okay signal. I usually spell out Okay, but I think OK may be more appropriate here.