"gook" (rhymes with "book")

[Douglas G. Wilson]

>"Goog" is attested in HDAS (s.v. "gook").

A headword itself, I see. OK.

>I've never seen "guke"; have you checked ProQuest ?  (One thing militating
>against this spelling is that it could represent the sound in "cuke" cucumber.)

I haven't found "guke".

>How far back is "way back" for / gUk / ?

Ben Zimmer recently posted "golfing gooks" rhymed with "brooks" from 1917.

>"Book / gUk /" may simply represent a minority pronun. or a purely
>factitious term. The phr. itself is attested independently only once, right ?

We've seen two examples on this list as Ben Zimmer recently recalled: only
one was in audio so that the pronunciation is sure, but I think a rhyme is
likely for the printed one.

>Do we know the usu. early pronun. of "gook" (blockhead) ?

I don't think so, but we know that it occurred once in 1917 as /gUk/ (see
above).

>Do we even know its ety.?

Not for sure AFAIK.

>You'll have to search for early indications of the pronun. of "gook"
>(native).  I don't know just when it first appeared in a standard
>dictionary, or whether a pronun. ever appeared in AS.

I've searched a little. Early sightings in AS were devoid of pronunciation
help. EB (1958) shows /guk/, MW3 shows both, my older books don't show it
at all. I believe there was a big surge in the frequency and familiarity of
the word around the time of the Korean War (please correct me if necessary).

>The burden of proof is on the argument that for some unkn. reason the most
>freq. pronun. of "gook" (native) has swung from / gUk /  to / guk / .  Why
>should the proportions have been significantly different in the past?

If it is asserted that the modern ratio is, say, 10:1 in favor of /guk/,
then there is no reason AFAIK a priori to assume a change in the ratio
(although also no reason to exclude the possibility). If it is asserted
that the current ratio is, say, 100:1 (and I wouldn't find this
unbelievable) then the fact that both pronunciations appear in MW suggests
to me (doesn't prove though) that the ratio may have been different 50
years ago.

Why would it have changed? Well, IF it changed, and IF there is an
identifiable reason, I can think of two possibilities offhand: (1) "gook"
being likened to "spook" as an ethnic epithet, ca. 1945; (2) Korean
"mi-guk" being perceived as /miguk/ rather than /migUk/ and taken as a
folk-etymon, ca. 1950.

-- Doug Wilson