I vote against "SOFA" because it implies a misunderstanding of the full ramifications of what Boke is all about: not whether the out-of-focus areas are 'soft' or not, but what is the quality of the out-of-focus area. There can be bad boke and good boke; harsh boke and pleasing boke. The term 'soft' is less descriptive of these subtle but important distinctions.
I'll also vote for spelling it B-O-K-E, with the assumption that this is the closest transliteration of the term from Japanese to English.
Aside from the affect that spherical abberation has on boke, the shape of the lens aperture also has a remarkable affect. Look at the harsh quality of images from consumer video cameras, then look at the shape of their apertures: rarely are they even 6-sided; many are just triangular, or wedge-shaped. These produce terrible boke. Many of the better-boke lenses have apertures of 8 or more blades.
I also don't understand the notion that the terminology doesn't matter; perhaps there are those who don't appreciate the quality of photographic images; one clear distinction that can be made between photography and all other visual arts, and even biological vision, is glass-lensed (i.e. refractive) images have limited depth of focus that's affected by the size and shape of the aperture, and the specifics of the lens itself. Before optical imaging began to affect painting, this phenomenon was never seen in art. And although biological optics are refractive, the human retina/optic nerve/visual cortex seems to adjust focus and piece together a composite image that appears to be widely in focus.
So my argument is that, if narrow depth-of-focus is uniquely photographic, why shouldn't we be precise on what we call this affect, and how we describe its quality?
~Joe