The origins of "copacetic" are uncertain, according to several dictionaries. A variety of explanations exist, none of which are convincing,they say. First known use, 1919, they assert.
However, I found this in an 1894 book by Theodore Roosevelt, "From the Alleghanies to the Mississippi, 1769-1776" Â Â
The word has always reminded me of Leo Gorcey's character expounding to his fellow Bowery/Dead End Kids, using big words to impress, but he isn't precisely sure what they mean, and sometimes they are confabulations that sorta sound like maybe the word he would use if he knew how to use it.
The first I head the word, it was attributed to Satchel Paige. Dad played a little semi-pro baseball when he was young, and I've been told by uncles and others who knew him when, that Dad once struck out Satch. When I asked Dad about it, though, he blushed and stammered, and neither confirmed nor denied it. At this point, it doesn't really matter, I suppose. But it's a minor bit of family pride, whether it actually happened or not. Paige once played for a team out of Benton Harbor that wore exceptionally long beards, a religious group called "House of David" or something like that, and I know Dad's team played them, but nobody ever said that's how he came to pitch against him. Funny how the word "copacetic" would link to a church league baseball game in the 1930s, but my mind has always worked that way, even when it used to work.
Any other speculations on the origin of "copacetic"?
deaconB said
However, I found this in an 1894 book by Theodore Roosevelt, "From the Alleghanies to the Mississippi, 1769-1776" Â Â
deaconB,
Did Google Books lead you astray? I think it is hard for an 1894 book to refer to a novel written published in 1998. (Read a paragraph or two above copacetic.)
Yes, definitely led astray. But take a look at the page where I found it. Did Google get it wrong, or is there some *meaning* to that "1894". I suppose it could be a *different Teddy Roosevelt, but what do DAT recordings have to do with the Alleghanies to the Mississippi in the 18th century, and why was this on an ngrams link for cites from 1800-1961 for "copacetic"?Â
Is Google losing its mind as well, not just me?
Google has many errors in their books. In addition to this one where it is completely mis-identified, I have seen partial digital files of an unrelated book crammed onto the end of a perfectly scanned book. Not only does their scanning process seem to introduce many errors, their quality control is poor also. I have reported some errors, but I am not sure it helps and I don't want to be unpaid QC.
Ngrams is a better-than-nothing tool, but every workman needs to know his tools limits. I pointed out some ngram errors on another topic, but don't remember enough details to mount an effective search. Perhaps another member can remember it better.
EmmettRedd said: I pointed out some ngram errors on another topic ... Perhaps another member can remember it better.
I recall that thread but couldn't find it either. Too many (131) references to Ngrams all over this forum for an easy search. And now we've added this one. 🙂 But I believe you were pointing out flaws with the scanning and OCR process used in the Googlization (yes, that's now a word) of printed books.
Google itself admits very little editing after digitization, and problems with:
- upside-down scanned pages
- difficulty with OCR on certain font types (like OCRing "arms" as "anus")
- drop caps and other embellished text
- smaller fonts used in footnotes
- misplacement of graphics/art/photos on the page
- margin notes made in scholarly works that were deemed important to include
- documentation errors in the metadata (author, year and place of publication, etc.) ... some books were listed as published before the author was born.
See this Wiki entry for the academic criticisms. I was discussing how Ngrams was such a great tool, totally oblivious to these limitations, and you brought them to my attention, thank you.
To their credit, Google does have an easy error reporting process, but I have no idea how fast corrections are made or what their backlog is. And like you, I have no time for unpaid QC. I was initially surprised at the lack of post-scan editing, but from what I've read elsewhere online Google plans a "second pass" of those digitized books once more sophisticated OCR coupled with AI is perfected. This Googlization is a HUGE project, much of which is done by volunteers at participating universities. There are some who claim it's actually driving the development of better OCR + AI algorithms.