To fule about
The verb "to coco" is interesting syntactically, morphologically, and etymologically. For one thing it is highly degenerate in its tenses, and also its modality. There is little use for example of the indicative "I coco" or "cocoing the night away", and it mainly occurs with the modal auxiliary, so much so that one might wonder if the verb is really "to should coco", which in theory yields the expected conjugation "I should coco", "you should coco", "he/she/it should coco", etc. However, there is no use whatever for "it should coco", and while "you should coco" is intelligible to an English speaker, there is not a lot of evidence of its widespread occurrence, especially as a native speaker invariably prefers the shorter, better known, and perlocutionarily more effective idiomatic phrase "fuck off".
A further point is that the verb is invariably transliterated incorrectly, and in this matter history is no guide, as the verb does not occur for example in Dr Johnson's dictionary of English of the 18th century. The explanation for that will become apparent when its technically correct transliteration is revealed: "koko". That this is the correct spelling is evident from its etymology as an acronym. being short for "knickers off, knockers out". The absence of knickers from the 18th century and later of course explains its being unknown to the good Doctor, while the context of use self-evidently favours speech rather than e-mails, and accounts for the transliteration error. Unless of course there is something about cocoa and the English that this writer is not aware of.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
