dookie

[Wilson Gray]

On Sep 23, 2004, at 2:45 PM, Arnold M. Zwicky wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "Arnold M. Zwicky" <zwicky at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>
> Subject:      Re: dookie
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
> On Sep 23, 2004, at 10:24 AM, Steve Kleinedler quotes Bart Simpson:
>
>> (Scene: Bart at snowboarding class)
>>
>> Otto: ... Your lingo is progressing nicely.
>> Bart:   Can I go to the bathroom?
>> Otto:   Uh, uh -- say it in snowboard.
>> Bart:   Um, I've got to blast a dookie?
>> Otto:   Dook on!
>
> i don't have "dookie" , so i'm trying to figure out its syntax.  above
> it's used as a count noun (like "turd"), and similarly in "dookies" for
> "Dukies".  but HDAS glosses it as 'excrement', which suggests a mass
> use (like the most common uses of "shit") as well.  is this possible?
> things like, "gross, there's dookie all over the floor"?
>
> arnold, ever curious
>

I'm more likely to say, "Shit! There's dookie all over the floor.";-)
For me, the HDAS definition is spot on, including the use of "dookie"
as its own verb, e.g. "I've got to dookie." But, then, until *very*
recently, I thought that the word was known only to a few kids in my
old 'hood in Texas. So, what do I know? In any case, "blasting a
dookie," despite the syntactical problem, strikes me as pretty funny.

About a quarter-century ago, wasn't something similar to the following
conundrum being heard in linguistic circles?

A. A piece of shit and a turd are the same thing, right?
B. Right.
A. And if you cut a piece of shit in two, you get two pieces of shit,
right?
B. Right.
A. But, if you cut a turd in two, you don't get two turds, right?
B. Right.
A. Explain.

-Wilson Gray