Talk:OK/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Africa

The Africa references, & slave references, should have a segmented section,...:

However, and importantly for one candidate etymology, earlier documented examples exist of Africans in America using phonetically identical or strikingly similar words in a similar sense to okay. A Jamaican planter's diary of 1816 records a "Negro" as saying:

"Oh ki, massa, doctor no need be fright, we no want to hurt him."< ref >≈David Dalby (Reader in West African Languages, SOAS, U of London). (1971) "The Etymology of O.K.", The Times, 14 January 1971 < / ref >

And in 1784:

"Kay, massa, you just leave me, me sit here, great fish jump up into da canoe, here he be, massa, fine fish, massa; me den very grad; den me sit very still, until another great fish jump into de canoe;..." < ref>J. F. D. Smyth. (1784) A Tour in the United States of America (London, 1784), 1 : 118-21

There had been a Radio Shack employee, Vermont Av., Koreatown-Westlake-Hollywood, named Okey, rather than Okay, of Africa.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 03:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

1/ The earlier Chronologically-organised discussion embeds "the Africa references" in a logical context for the discussion. However, the later Etymologically-organised discussion does have a separate section for them.

2/ Radio Shack's Mr Okey might have (had?) a very similar name but he came along about 200 years after the earliest recorded American uses of the word. I'm sure he would agree he probably had little to do with the etymology of the word Okay, which is the topic of the article.  ;) Saltation (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Accepted" section confusing

Section 1.2 Accepted is currently rather hard to read. It starts out with what seems to be a quote without explaining it is, and continues with "Read gives a number of subsequent appearances in print:" which isn't even grammatical unless "Read" is taken as the name of Allen Walker Read, who is not introduced until the next section. I'm reverting the edit (which was just a removal of the first paragraph of the section with no explanation whatsoever) that seems to be the cause of this confusion. 130.89.228.82 (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I saw last week the important introductory para had been deleted over Christmas --simple vandalism-- but wasn't able to fix it until tonight. Most gratifying to see someone had beaten me to it. Saltation (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that most of the significant (lasting) damage done by Trolls and EgoPriests on Wikipedia, warping articles to the point they are borken, confusing, or nominated for deletion, is achieved by simply Deleting text they object to? That is, if they see something they feel is not perfect, rather than trying to make it better while still preserving its contribution to the article, they simply click in, delete it, and move on, leaving a damaged article behind them. Typically, the edit is commented with great self-righteousness: a "chilling effect" for those coming after wondering if they should contribute to fix apparent lacunae.

It's a form of parasitism (deceit-masked): acquiring status or ego-strokes by destroying other people's contributions instead of themselves contributing, but claiming that the destruction IS contribution. We need a neat word for this sort of behaviour. Labels are useful. Any ideas? Saltation (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

au quay

Somehow the term of French sailors "au quai", it's now on the quay, has been lost. --Alex1011 (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

fixed. Saltation (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Slang, Yo

I would not consider "okay" to be slang, but rather colloquialism. World Book encyclopedia seems to support my view in their article on slang. All thoughts are welcome.--Supernerd 10 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. I apologize if I'm splitting hairs, as I have a tendency to do so.

This article uses "Typographers' quotations" in some places - needs fixing.

According to the Wikipedia manual of style, the article should use "Logical quotations". Can someone please fix this - I haven't got time. Thanks!

Spelling of "emphasises"

Some people keep insisting on changing "emphasises" to "emphasizes" (or worse, "emphasize" which is bad grammar), in the Oll Korrect section. The Manual of Style dictates that the ORIGINAL style of spelling should be kept. I'm not going to keep reverting it to how it was, only to have people change it back again, so I thought I'd just note it here.

If you check old revisions by e.g. Cluebot and Quintote, you'll see that the original spelling of the word was "emphasises". Thanks. 90.205.80.229 (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In the context of an article otherwise written in American English, “emphasise” is of course a misspelling. One does not preserve misspellings nor otherwise leave an article using a mixture of American and British English simply because some earlier editor erred. —SlamDiego_←T 00:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

SlamDiego is completely correct. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English, a particular article should normally use all AE or all BE (or, in some cases, another variety). The rule about not changing from one variety to another doesn't mean that the first spelling of a particular word must be preserved, because that would violate the requirement of uniform spelling within an article. Rather, the rule means that, if the article has no strong connection to any particular English-speaking country, then the first national variety used in the article should be adhered to consistently thereafter.

The rule against change doesn't apply here, anyway. The article is about an expression that entered English through American speakers, so it should be in AE. In the article about Bob's your uncle, I didn't notice any points of divergence, but if someone sneaks in a "center" or "honor", the BE version should be substituted. JamesMLane t c 03:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Your second point surely bore statement here, but I would note that it had to some extent already been made it on this editor's talk page. —SlamDiego_←T 04:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OTOH considering the character of the article, are you sure the misspelling isn't intentional? Imagine correcting the bad spelling: "oll klear" to correct: "all clear".83.14.232.226 (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather more importantly, you edited a quotation. That is NEVER appropriate, regardless of whichever style you prefer. Saltation (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little late to this discussion and it seems to have been resolved, so I hope not to stir up any old feelings, I just wanted to make clear about the following that was written in this discussion- "In the context of an article otherwise written in American English, “emphasise” is of course a misspelling." That is not correct, emphasises or emphasizes are both correct no matter if you grew up in America or not. British and American English spellings are accepted as legitimate according to Literature professionals and professors in both countries. The distinction being that both are DIALECTS of ONE LANGUAGE and not either- seperate languages or one a gullah, patois, or other bastardization of another.Camelbinky (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

I had heard that the "Zero Killed" was used, not during World War II, but during the American Civil War, which would be much more plausible. However, I'm not quite sure of that. Can anyone confirm or infirm it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.219.195.246 (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we need reliable sources. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

88.219.195.246 (catchy name): If you read the very next line in the article, you will find confirmation of what you've heard

SqueakBox: If you read the very next line in the article, you will find not only confirmation of the story but also a reference to the primary academic source for the etymology of OK, the result of over 20 years exhaustive study and widely regarded as landmark research into OK's etymology. Most people would regard this as sufficiently reliable. Saltation (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OED

The section allegedly from the OED bears no resemblance to what the OED actually has to say about OK. Kokiri (talk)

Scots?

I'm surprised that there's no reference to the Scots expression och aye, an exclamation generally translated as "yes." Misterdoe (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There is precisely such a reference, actually.

>An author in the Nottingham Journal in 1943 suggests that OK is simply an adaptation of the old Scottish expression: och aye. The Scottish expression derives from och, meaning an exclamation of surprise and aye meaning yes, and has been in existence since perhaps the 16th century.

Saltation (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Stan Lee

I disagree with linking "nuff said" to the Stan Lee article for the following reasons:

1. The important point is "NS", not "nuff said" since the analogy is with the formation of OK, not a general discussion of nineteenth-century slang . AFAIK Stan Lee does not say or write NS.
2. "nuff said" is a common phrase. The fact that it's a catchphrase of Stan Lee is irrelevant in this context. He has not revived or popularised it. I've heard and said it often and never read a word of Mr Lee's work. Should we also link "Oll Write" to Michael Barrymore gven that it's his cachphrase?
3. General prohibition on Easter egg links. The only person who will expect to get to Stan Lee when they click "nuff said" is someone who already knows that it's his catchphrase, i.e. who learns nothing by clicking. Everyone else arrives at what for them is a random biography. Maybe they read as far as section 5.1 where it's mentioned in passing; or maybe doesn't see why to bother.
4. If you think Stan's use is interesting enough to share with the world, you could try add a note to wikt:nuff said — currently not one of wiktionary's finest pages, it could do with leg up. Wiktionary seems the best place to illustrate far more thoroughly and obviously that the phrase is still current, and not 1820s ephemera; which — I think — is the point you were trying to make.

jnestorius^(talk) 23:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

'KK' Form of 'Okay'

Someone may want to do some research on this (I could be wrong).. but the 'KK' form may have originated as a travel industry term... in the CRS (computerized reservation system), 'KK' means 'Confirmed'...

Just a thought! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.88.221 (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

O.K. vs. okay

Since the originally word is "O.K." and "okay" is just a misspelling, in a sense, we should use "O.K." and not "okay" throughout the article. Indeed the entire name of the article should be changed to O.K., or at least OK if internet protocols do not allow the former. We should therefore change the very opening sentence from "Okay is an informal term of approval, assent, or acknowledgment (often written as OK or O.K.). " to "O.K. is an informal term of approval, assent, or acknowledgment (often written as OK or okay)."--Bruce Hall (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions don't favour the original name, but rather the most common name. Going by dictionaries, "OK" is the headword in most, with "okay" second and "O.K." third — it's now usual to leave the stops out of initialisms. Since OK is a disambiguation page, that's not available. Calling "okay" a misspelling is not accurate: other spelled-out initialisms include 'deejay', 'emcee'. I have rewritten the intro to avoid giving too much prominence to the "okay" spelling. There is also the Okay#Spelling style section, which could do with some work. jnestorius^(talk) 11:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Etymology uncertain?

Wikipedia is giving too much credence to the Choctaw and Wolof hypotheses.

The Oxford English Dictionary (draft revision, June 2008) has this to say about the etymology:

From the detailed evidence provided by A. W. Read it seems clear that O.K. first appeared in 1839 (an instance of a contemporary vogue for humorous abbreviations of this type), and that in 1840 it became greatly reinforced by association with the initialism O.K. n.1, O.K. int.2 (see discussion s.v. [i.e. "Old Kinderhook"]).

Other suggestions, e.g. that O.K. represents an alleged Choctaw word oke ‘it is’ (actually the affirmative verbal suffix -okii ‘indeed, contrary to your supposition’), or French au quai, or Scottish English och aye, or that it derives from a word in the West African language Wolof via slaves in the southern States of America, all lack any form of acceptable documentation.

Other dictionaries and etymologists endorse Reed's theory Merriam-Webster American Heritage Etymonline Word Origins. Encarta is the least dogmatic: ("Of the many competing theories about the origins of OK, the one now most widely accepted is ...") but Oll Korrect is still the only theory it mentions. Has anybody seriously put forward the Choctaw theory since the days of that Peter Paul and Mary song? While Dalby's Wolof hypothesis postdates Read's work, he is not an expert: it's a mixture of unsubstantiated hypothesis and minimal evidence which has been challenged by Cassidy. The game of looking for English words derived from your pet language is one that is played by amateurs everywhere.

I intend to rewrite the article accordingly. jnestorius^(talk) 12:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but personally I have a terrible time believing that a localized comical abbreviation fad invented the most familiar word in the world and did so without popularizing a single other abbreviation. Perhaps I need to read Read to convince myself that "all correct" was a common colloquial phrase at the time, because *nobody* says it today (whereas "no use" and "'nuff said" remain common). It just seems far more likely that it was already a common Negro word that was creeping into colloquial English and was ripe for a comical abbreviation. And while your last point is well taken, it should be noted that inventing acronyms as folk etymologies is *also* a game played by amateurs everywhere. Tysto (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are are a fair few matches on Google books 1776-1876 for "all correct". And, while it was the initialism fad that created OK, it was the 1840 election campaign that popularised it. But, most importantly, what you or I or any other Wikipedian finds plausible is not really relevant; it's what the verifiable sources say that matters. jnestorius^(talk) 20:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

But verifiable sources are what I'm speaking to; you said that you want to disregard the evidence from Dalby because you personally don't trust it. I'm saying "And I don't trust that Read went far enough" but Wikipedia shouldn't present one explanation over the other; we aren't qualified to vet them. (However it is appropriate for Wikipedia to say the other explanations have no evidence.) Thank you for the link. But searching for "oh ki" uncovers evidence that supports the supposition that it was a Negro slang word. I think the article should emphasize these two plausible origins and describe the others as unsupported. --Tysto (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to downplay the evidence from Dalby because none of the experts trust it. I don't propose to relegate Dalby to the subpage of crank theories; it is sufficiently well-regarded to be discussed here. However, we should not raise it to the same level of esteem as the Read theory, because none of the experts do so. jnestorius^(talk) 19:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably emerged from several independent locations

It may well be that it emerged independently at different places. This isn't so unlikely. Think of the totally coincidental emergence of Dennis the Menace in the US and UK simultaneously. I reckon also at some point American shippers started saying OK when they saw the phrase "Ola Kala" written in Greek on the side of ships docked at port, meaning "All Good", and ready to disembark etc. Eugene-elgato (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

3 or 4

The under etymology it says that their are 3 probable etymologies of OK. It the proceeds to list 4 possibilities. I don't know if one of those shouldn't be there or if it should say there are 4 possibilities.98.226.161.110 (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Mindmatrix 14:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie

Shoulnt this be listed under Variations? popularised by The Simpsons Corhen (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, it existed long before Ned Flanders. — Don't insert your remarks in the middle of someone else's, okay? —Tamfang (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

sorry, i must have miss clicked while editing, didnt mean to insert it like that.... i know he didnt come up with the phrase, i never said he did. but this is probly the largest usage in pop culture, so isnt that worth mentioning? Corhen (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

So far so good

The current article of okay is well written. It is expansive, inclusive and analytical. ...Right?... However. I feel the most interesting usage of "okay" is the modern emphatic usage coupled with it's partner "alright". i.e. "Are you Okay?" "Yes, I'm alright!" I'm interested enough, that I may budget and exploration on my own. The earliest usages appear to be more casual or comical. It's also possible that the West African origins may have been learned from slave traders. There may not be a written account of "okay" on the African Continent, in a native language, before commerce ships, Navies, and slave trade. --Dudberg (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Italian "ochei"

It simply doesn't exist. It must be a misspelling did by someone who realy doesn't know english. Proofs:

• lo Zanichelli, by Nicola Zingarelli doesn't present ochei as a possible alternative spelling
• It's even not a traslitteration because it would be "occhei" with double "c".
• You find it on google (italian pages limited search) only with other mispellings made to sound funny [1]

Because of all these proofs I'm removing it. Virus92ita (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3