dookie

[James C Stalker]

As a UNC grad (62), I find this discussion interesting-historically and
linguistically and personally.  I came to UNC from KY, and, of course,
encountered a significantly different dialect.  But, the /ju/~/u/
distinction did not catch my ear.  I did not socialize in the Greek or
sports crowd, so did not encounter a culture of rivalry.  In fact, because
one of my roommates dated Ann Tyler and I had a car but he didn't, my
limited encounters with Duke were as chauffeur, patiently waiting.  Duke was
a different world.  I think we need to take into account the sociolinguistic
context in this discussion.

Some years later, I really don't remember when, but not more than 6-7 years
ago, an old UNC acquaintance remarked to me, in email exchanges, that her
daughter, a UNC undergrad, related to her that a popular beach chant by the
Carolina folk on the Carolina beaches inhabited by UNC and Duke folk alike
was "Dook, dook, dook until you puke, puke, puke."  My understanding was
that the Duke students drank so much that they were obnoxious in some way,
but I assumed they had a tendency to vomit in unacceptable places.  Whatever
the meaning of "dook," scatological or not, it seems there is a clear
sociolinguistic distinction between  "puke/duke" people and "puke/dook"
people, with some interesting plays on the phonological similarities.
"Puke" and "duke" are normal in NC, or at least were when I lived there,
therefore don't excite notice or pejoration.  "Dook" does excite notice, and
therefore, given the sports and Greek rivalry, pejoration. And, of course, I
don't know of a dialect in which people "pook" when they vomit.  But, my
knowledge is small and limited.

Just some thoughts from an NC visitor.

Jim Stalker

Wilson Gray writes:

> 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
>



James C. Stalker
Department of English
Michigan State University