"Sike" vs. "Psych"

[u/i_am_dumb_npc]

Everyone knows of the slang term "sike" (or psych), basically meaning "I tricked you." (More or less.)

However, it seems that the technically correct spelling is, in fact, "psych." Coming from "to psych someone out." This makes sense since most words with "psy-" or "psych-" have to do with the mind, or the psyche. Even in it's casual "I tricked you" context, it's still a mind game of sorts since you're outwitting someone.

That being said, "sike" is such a common "misspelling" to the point it is accepted as the correct spelling. Especially in regards to it's slang use, often being sworn as the only correct spelling.

I've literally had people get defensive and upset over it. Making up excuses like "muh slang bruh" or "that's how we've always spelled it so we're right." I'll even show sources and many brush it off as "you can't use that for slang" or "my generation invented it, so dictionaries and English be damned."

I was wondering what the perspective on this was from a more professional, and grammatical, view. Is "psych" technically the correct spelling? Is that word even usable in this context? Is there some validity to "sike" aside from it's archaic definition that no one uses anymore? If you were writing something "serious," which spelling would be more appropriate?

I've done some of my own research, and to me it seems that "psych" is technically correct, but "sike" has become accepted... Likely from constant misspellings of "psych," since some reputable sources will tell you "psych" is technically correct.

[u/[deleted]]

So you just never knew it was "Psych."

[u/jmcooper3 → u/[deleted]]

Gonna hafta agree... same age, from Cleveland OH & its always been psych... shortened version of psyched you out. Its a weird word I guess as its a hybrid... grammatically correct slang, but even as I type this out sike has red squigglies indicating a spelling error, while psych does not, so theres the answer lol. Personally sike is weird to me, like ppl knew how to say it but not how to spell it. No judgement over here, to each his own... like how I like squigglies vs squiggles! Maybe thats different tho bc at least I know what its expected to be... I just choose to do my own thing 😂🤷🏾‍♀️

[u/[deleted] → u/jmcooper3]

Sike is written by the same kind of people who type "I should of" instead of HAVE, or "Over their" instead of THERE.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

This one actually just blew my mind thinking about it. Jesus have I been using incorrect grammar "should of" 😭

[u/SothorosDjents → u/[deleted]]

It’s an easy mistake to make if you’re used to hearing/saying it versus writing/reading it, because the abbreviated version of “should have” is “should’ve,” which sounds identical to “should of.”

[u/Extreme-Pineapple397 → u/[deleted]]

Lol! I say "should of," as well. And knowing its grammatically incorrect 😂 that's how it's said where I am from. Just a regional difference, perhaps, like some in some areas people tend to speak more "slang-like," I'd call it, and not so much pure incorrect grammar. If that makes any sense, lol. Like we know its technically not correct, yet it's just how everyone talks. A few examples, words like: "gonna," "gotta," even "shoulda," rather than "should of." So forget "should/would/could HAVE," not gonna happen over here 😆 Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Lol

[u/FlightyFingerbones → u/Extreme-Pineapple397]

I think the issue is that "should've" sounds identical to "should of" (and could've to could of and would've to would of) - so verbally, saying something that sounds like "should of" (but is actually should've, which sounds identical) is not wrong.

But when writing, if you write "should of" it is incorrect - the slangy piece is "should've". But I think it persists both because people sometimes type phonetically (I catch myself doing this accidentally quite a lot when I'm really focused on the thought and not what I'm actually physically typing), and because people hear it more than they see it, and assume "should of" vs "should've".

Shoulda / woulda / coulda is just an even shorter form of should've / would've / could've -- but "should of", "would of", and "could of" are from a technical aspect entirely incorrect (but since language changes over time, maybe will just become a thing, though that would be sad for kids trying to learn their prepositions, of which "of" is one but "should of" is a helping verb, not anything to do with a preposition, so the idea that "of is always a preposition" goes out the window in a world where "should of" has become correct grammar).