Talk:Yo (greeting)

This article was nominated for deletion on 03-10-07. The result of the discussion was keep.

Yoism and format

Should this entry have a link to Yoism?
- Loadmaster 15:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, i think it should at least make a link to Yoism.. This article really needs to have some formatting, its just a block of text. (I would do it but im not very good at 'wikify'ing...) Samoen 16:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Same here. i wish i could, but heh. V.V. hopefuly someone does it. Peace Out Yo! -EvilHom3r September 25, 2006. 6:07 AM (EST)

1960s?

Since when did "yo" begin in the 1960s? I've seen many 50s movies where American GIs in WWII would respond to the calling of roll with the word. That proves that the phrase is older than Pyle's usage, and would strongly suggest that it was in usage by at least the mid 1940s in that context. Some more serious research needs to be done into the origins and history. - Plasticbadge 19:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears in Western movies from the 50s, at least. 71.171.103.178 (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

1970s

I lived in New England from about 1976 to 1984, and never ever heard anyone use the term "yo" till i saw Battlestar Galactica, the original tv series, which also introduced the term "frack". Aside from a few experimentel uses at school after that show aired, nobody used the term yo again until it became popular in rap music.

1940's?

Um f-y-i most wwII movies weren't made in wwII. they were made after it ended when theusage was more common. you should use a more reliable critisizm before trying to prove the article wrong than movies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.186.112.1 (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Plasticbadge stated 50s movies, which suggests that it was used in the 40s (assuming the language used in the films is roughly accurate).MorkaisChosen 19:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

2007-03-10 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 05:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Dutch Origin?

According to the book, Black English by JL Dilliard, which I read many years ago, it is of Dutch Origin. I am going to have to go back to the source to check it out, but I am pretty sure that this is the case. It was originally spelled "Joe." In Black English, there were sample of writings with this spelling contained, dating back to the forties. I am going to track the book down and check it out because my memory is a little fuzzy, unless someone finds it first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.189.13.220 (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Transwiki

Should this be transwiki'ed to wiktionary? Sarsaparilla 16:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Negatory good buddy. This article has wider cultural significance and is not just as a mere word. You got that yo? Check it. (Wallamoose (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

Traditional Japanese music

I know there's a use of "yo" in Japanese traditional music, but it goes more like "yoo-!". Can anyone please find relevant sources to this and add it to the article? 22:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC) White Mage Cid

Italian "Io"? Unlikely.

I'm not buying the (unsourced) explanation that "Yo" stems from Italian "Io". Italian "Io" is pronounced as ['i:.ɔ], two syllables, starting with a long and stressed "EE" sound, and an open and very short "o" sound. (EE-o) "Yo", on the other hand, is pronounced as [joʊ], one syllable, with a short y and a longer oh following, much more like Spanish "yo", which also means "I". (there is, however, in southern Italy, an interjection sounding much the same way as the American counterpart, without th "y" sound: O! [oʊ], which actually is used in the same way as American "yo", (as in "O! Michele!" which might have migrated over to America that way.)

Speculative sections

The history, etymology, and origins not only are mostly unreferenced, but highly speculative and in some cases unlikely to be true. I would set this article to be either wholly re-written or at the very least it needs to be better sourced with a modicum of scholarly rigor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.124.16.11 (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

This whole article is speculative, especially the sections taken as gospel simply because some academic decided to write a book about it. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Etymology of Yo

For a while, we had the correct etymology of "Yo" listed on the page under the etymology section. However, for whatever reason, user JesseRafe has vehemently insisted on keeping the folk etymology currently listed on the page, and has reverted any attempts of me trying to restore the actual etymology to the page. My last attempt (where I included many references) to restore the actual etymology to the page was reverted by user AussieLegend, on the grounds that my restoration was done in a way that reverted other unrelated, meaningful contributions by other editors. I have thenceforth not made any further attempts to correct the etymology section, on the grounds that I figured JesseRafe would be unlikely to accept any explanations from me, references or ne.

Now, I have on multiple occasions suggested to JesseRafe that he open a discussion rather than constantly revert my edits if he honestly believed that the Italian etymology was the correct one. However, he refused to do so.

Therefore, I have decided that I would open a discussion here, as I'd rather not allow folk etymologies to distort the perception of readers if we can prevent them from doing so. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, "for "a while" your opinion of what is the correct etymology was on there, added by you. This was uncited. Your opinion of an incorrect folk etymology was there for years, and has been re-added because it was cited. If you want to call these published books wrong, then find a source that says that it is wrong. Until then, the cited items must be treated as verified, and uncited musings must be treated as unsubstantiated OR. Basic procedures. JesseRafe (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

If you bothered checking that aforementioned edit, you would have noticed that I included plenty of references to it. I'm not sure if you glossed over the rest of my message or what, but I clearly mentioned that that edit included references. Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but I'm not the first one to point out the ridiculousness of the folk etymology currently present on this page. Look at the other discussions about it above. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Humor me. Show me a single reference I removed here. This was my edit, before AussieLegend's restoratrion and expansion. JesseRafe (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I never said that you reverted anything that had references, I said that the last edit that I made, which (again) I have linked above, contains plenty of references that I added. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I never saw that edit, and, quite frankly, if it belongs at all, it should go in Other Uses. It's greatly over-long, and has no connection with the word the article is about. Yo and the Yes/Yeah/Ja group might have at one point been related, but like vermin and worm or graph and carve mean different things in modern English, and have for centuries. No contemporary usage of "yo" means anything close to an affirmative. The closest is the relatively random use as a simple interjection to mean "present/accounted for/here" in some rollcalls, such as seen in calvary troops in Westerns, but nowhere else I've seen or heard it. JesseRafe (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not pertinent to its etymology, though. Semantic shifts occur all of the time. That is one of the reasons why we try to list etymologies here, because if every word were to be derived from precisely what one would have assumed it be derived from, nobody would need to research etymologies. Furthermore, using one of the examples you gave, "vermin" and "worm" are still etymologically related. No amount of semantic shift will ever change that. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course they're etymologically related, that's why I was bringing them up as examples. The worm article doesn't say anything about vermin, etc. None of that belongs on this article. You are trying really hard to seem like an expert in linguistics topics, but you really sound silly when you try to explain things like semantic shift, especially because you can't understand simple pragmatics. Really, what do you think I meant by "but like..."? Obviously they stem from the same root, they're the first two doublets that happened to come to my head, but all of this uncited noise about yeomen belongs on a blog post about interesting etymologies, not an article on "yo". It's distracting and overly-in-depth (not to mention eminently questionable). JesseRafe (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not "trying hard" to do anything of the sort, so please stop making those claims. Perhaps I misunderstood your last comment when I responded?

Either way, whether or not the comparison to yeoman's development is useful, the fact of the matter is that the correct etymology is now sourced, so it should be reinstated. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Listen, if you're not going to continue this discussion, I'm just going to re-add the sourced material into the etymology. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)