I'm only replying because I've got nothing better to do. (Recuperating.) On Fri 06 Jan 2023 at 15:18:44 (-0500), Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 01:26:54PM -0600, David Wright wrote: > > And cool in this modern sense (and words like awesome, wicked, and so > > on) is quite recent. > > > > Rather, > > > > coo² (slang) interjection, expressive of surprise. (Chambers) > > > > and this has been around far longer than my lifetime. > > In the context I used it in, it expresses glitz for its own > > sake, rather than adding any needed functionality. The gimmicks > > attract the unsophisticated eye, but that's all there is, with > > no underlying substance. > > > > In particular, it's a derogatory term, unlike cool, which is > > generally a term of approval. > > When using slang, the current meaning is the one that will be understood > by your audience. Not some archaic meaning.
Err, where did you get the idea that coo is archaic? > I know that's going to be an obstacle for many of the people here, > since we're generally a mature bunch, but that's the nature of a living > language. > > If you want to use a slang term that you know is pretty old, and you > aren't sure whether its meaning is still the same, you can look it up > on Urban Dictionary, or just Google it and see what contexts you get > for it. It's not new (like cool), it's old, which doesn't mean it's archaic, nor that it's not current. (Compare with your using the F word, which is at least 500 years old, but still current and just as vulgar.) It's in the new-fangled online dictionary: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/coo interjection British slang an exclamation of surprise, awe, etc and it's in Webster's College from the 1950s to the present day, and Chambers from my schooldays to at least 2003 (when I stopped buying a copy every five years or so). We Brits use the word "Coo"; I guess the equivalent here is "Gee", which sounds very American to British ears of my generation. > Or, when in doubt, just don't use the slang term at all. There > are people here for whom English is a second language, and slang terms > and idioms tend to confuse them immensely. I wasn't in doubt at all. The sentence said: "[ … ] it's good that the CU hasn't run with every fad¹ that some web developers seem to want". No ambiguity there, surely. I then added some colour with a clause describing how /I/ would personally describe those sorts of fad, "so that they get what I call a high 'coo-rating'." I then went beyond giving just an ordinary dictionary definition of coo by instead adding an example sentence: "(Coo, look at that.)" I would say that that example is as clear as any of the four given under Etymology 3 on https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/coo . Oh, and if we're talking about immense confusion, then just read the post I was replying to, and tell me exactly what is the complaint. Just the subject line and the last two paragraphs will do. Pretend you're back at school and have been asked to write a précis. BTW, I've yet to hear anyone around here (Midwest) say "coo" rather than "cool". Perhaps it's the company I keep, or maybe so-called "clipping" is a regional habit, or rural, or Canadian, or something. Dunno. And be honest, have you ever heard anyone actually say that something is "most coo"? They can go to the trouble of sticking "most" in front, but can't be bothered to utter the "l"? Really? When I looked up clipping, most of the references concerned vowels rather than final consonants. But eventually I turned up apocope. In its broader sense, apocope can apparently refer to the loss of any final sound (including consonants) from a word. However, even here I couldn't find examples of a terminal "l" being clipped. (The obvious British example of apocope is any word like car, where the "r" is completely silent unless followed by a vowel.) ¹ an intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is short-lived and without basis in the object's qualities; a craze. (One of the online dictionaries. Google it if it concerns you which one.) Cheers, David.
