Talk:Yo (greeting)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: It appears in Western movies from the 50s, at least. 71.171.103.178 (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  1960s? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: 1940's?

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot 05:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-03-10 Automated pywikipediabot message 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dutch Origin? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Traditional Japanese music 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Speculative sections 

message: Let's analyze one after the other the "refs" added by some funny person as supposedly being published proof for 'yo' being cognate with an ancient form on 'yes' in english:
the link http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=no doesn't mention AT ALL 'yo' in anay manner at all, it has nothing to do in the wikipedia article.
The following "proof" http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2727&context=wordways , presented in a pdf document written by a certain "Brooke Maxey" that relates yo to old germanic forms of modern 'yes' , is not a reliable source. Who the heck is Brooke Maxey? From what I read, he is an obscure writer who has apparently written papers and articles. That is not something valid for wikipedia as it not peer reviewed, unless it is presented as a possible theory amongst others. I'm sorry, by the way, he only said in his paper (if you took the time to read it) that 'yo' was considered being a slang equivalent of 'yes' in southern military schools.
As for the next ref presented as proof for "yes" , http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=yeoman , it si etymonline's entry for 'yeoman' and in absolutely no way shape or form does the etymology of yeoman relate to any form of "yes" if you read the entry : it relates to the ancient versions of "young" in english, not "yes", as the entry specifies. The prefix yeo- in  yeoman comes from various germanic terms ga,ge, gea, gau, gawi all relating to the countryside, the village, as in frisian 'gaman'. Unfortunately the article does not relate to the interjection 'yo ! ' anyhow.
Now,concerning page 157 of the book " Words in Dictionaries and History: Essays in Honour of R.W. McConchie" , I do have this book and page 157 is just the beginning of a chapter that tries to show the various attmpts of explaining the etymology of 'yeoman' comparing folk etymology, early 17th century explanations and so on. NOWHERE is 'yo' as an interjection explained nor its etymology considered, only the prefix 'yeo-" in the word 'yeoman' is considered: the possibilities of the prefix meaning young, gay (in the sense of merry) IF someone wants me to copy the page here in text form, I'll do it since googlebooks does not have the page in free viewing.(pages 157-159 are hidden). More on the subject: the book in question speaks about the theory of yeo- in yeoman as cognate with "yes" only at page 160. There it is said that (amongst dozens of other theories for the etymoliogy of yeoman)  an author named Mahn wrote for Webster in 1864 that the prefix yeo was cognate with old english forms of yes (  quote from page 160 " 'Mahn (in Webster 1864) also traced yeo- to a prefix. However, his view dif‑fered from Grimm’s, for he identified yeo- with ye- in Engl. yes. Since yea, of which yes is an extended variant, continues OE gē, related to ja in Gothic, German, and Dutch, the resulting meaning of yeoman (from an affirmative particle and man) has little to recommend it. ' " ). The book then gives on page 161 a conclusion on the "most likely" etymology for yeoman and especially the prefix yeo: apparently in old english the prefix "oe" was added to mean " that comes after", so that yeoman simply means "one who comes after a man" in the sense of a squire, a servant, a peasant who serves a noble. 
Yes, you just read it, in the book, they do NOT agree with this funky idea of yeo- in yeoman related to "yes" . Alas, the whole wikipedia entry for "yo" is taken almost verbatim from page 160 and twisted around, even refenecing this page as being a support for yo coming form an old form of "yes" and THIS is where the trick resides: a peculiar and isolated theory for the etymology of yeoman that has been generally dismissed since then (reminder: 1864). Because when you look at Oxford , Merriam-Webster and Etymonline's entries for "yo" they have NO ACTUAL OFFICIAL ETYMOLOGY for the intejection yo, just the date it's been used for the first time (15th century) and the fact that it has something to do with Old English. Which means the person who wrote the section on wikipedia is just bamboozling everyone with his "yo equals old english form of yes" by using refs that ion no manner prove it (the worse one being the etymonline page for "no" that is out of subject since it doesn't even mention "yo" nor any ancient forms) , the only ref supposedly proving it being an obscure article (by "Brooke Maxey"...)  with nothing to connect the said article to (is it a book? a newspaper or magazine article? an excerpt froma thesis? just a personal note? ...) .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I only skimmed this as it was kinda unreadable, your thoughts could be stronger presented if condensed, but I agree on the whole. Please see the above conversations with one stubborn individual editor who stymied the process and got their esoteric version of their preferred etymology in this article. And yes, "bamboozled" is a perfect term for what transpired. I recall trying in vain to prove that just because one editor was citing random crap didn't make it not random crap, and that that editor was trying to claim that actual published books establishing "yo" in its modern sense (not as an unrelated two-letter word that doubtlessly has been used before Shakespeare) were wrong and s/he was right was based entirely on Original Research, but had to compromise with this version that contains both the nonsense etymology and the 20th century origins. JesseRafe (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  First of all, both JesseRafe and the IP should be assuming good faith. Second, IP fellow, just because you don't like an author doesn't mean that they are not reliable. Third, JesseRafe, if you are still trying to suggest that yo comes from Italian, I won't be able to take you seriously anymore. The word was used from at least the Middle English period onwards, and has notably been used in nautical vocabulary ever since the Golden Age of the Pirates. Traditional pirates in most cases either used the local vocabulary of their area, some archaic nautical terms, and/or borrowed words from Dutch. They were not known for haphazardly borrowing Italian pronouns for use as interjections. So please, drop it already. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The references were cleaned up. Google that Brook Maxey, nothing relevant. OR by proxy. The others had remained for quite some time but were not in "reference" to anything mentioned in the article, namely to "yeoman", "no" (!!!), and the Pirate sing-song schpiel, "yeo-ho" more commonly seen as "yo ho" and being added to "other uses" section now. JesseRafe (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I restored the references because they are not nonsense. Feel free to remove the "yeoman" stuff though. 
NOTE: I have to go somewhere, I'll be back later.Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  We've all been bamboozled by the so called "refs" in the etymology section 

message: That the only actually correct etymology (from guaglione) is yet again not on the page.  Just totally shocked.
24rhhtr7 (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally Shocked 

message: In this edit  and edit summary, User:W124l29 has written in wikipedia's voice that the word "yo" has been misappropriated by African American musicians. The only sources seem to be a wikilink to cultural appropriation and a link to "mis-appropriation" in an online amateur dictionary of etymology. In addition he has added five consecutive identical references to the word "yo" in the same online dictionary. None of these are reliable sources. The phrase about "cultural diffusion and dialectal loan word" is also W124l29's own creation. He includes as his source a link to a short online article by the academic linguist Walt Wolfram which does not mention the word "yo". These and other additions by W124l29 are not improvements to the article.  Mathsci (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In good faith, I do believe that you have misread what I typed.  I don't understand as to why you wouldn't simply message me about this.  Regardless, I'll digress.  The entire point of Urbandictionary is that it is a dictionary of slang terms, where those given slang terms, each cited entry being unique and not identical, are very much representative of general colloquial belief regarding the folk etymology of "yo"--as opposed to the etymological dictionary's definition, which is in no way amateur being as that it is quoted in academic papers, various E-dictionaries, &c, and has extensive & correct research given as cited on its sources page.  If you would rather that I find a 3rd-party quotation instead of my own words for "dialectal loan word", a phrase as much words as any other sentence typed on Wikipedia, then I'm sure that we can come to find that together.  The cited article from PBS describes, from an expert source with additional recommended readings appended, how cultural diffusion very much exists, functions with regard to specifics about types of diffusion, and how such cultural diffusion of language occurs in examples within the USA--the topic of that portion of that section of this Wikipedia article "Yo".  So, I disagree that my edits are not improvements, as they are clear citations supporting both additions of mine aswell as already-existing accepted edits by others.  If my citations are either too many per point or not best conforming to Wikipedia's style, then I would very much appreciate help in that regard.  If my citations would be better replaced with others from other sources, then I would be interested in how I might achieve such.  All stated, I likewise do not understand as to why you are editing this page at this moment.  You don't appear to have edited this page before, and rather appear to have followed me from a Sockpuppet Investigation.  Sincerely.W124l29 (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's simply not a WP:Good source and that's the end of the matter. JesseRafe (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I would like for you to respond on your talk page, as I began the conversation there.  For efficiency's sake.  I'm looking forward to reading your explanation in further detail.W124l29 (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep discussions about the content of this article here and not on user talk pages. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The content was not the topic of discussion, but rather this editor's increasingly rude behavior. Thanks for the suggestion, regardless. W124l29 (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Misappropriation" 

message: echo is off  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yo666 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2017 

message: I think that this is the true etymology for this term as it relates to the Philadelphia accent...
In the Neapolitan dialect "guaglione" (pronounced guahl-YO-nay) signified a young man. The chiefly unlettered immigrants shortened that to guahl-YO, which they pronounced whal-YO. That was inevitably further shortened to yo. The common greeting among young Italian-American males was "Hey, whal-YO!", and then simply, "Yo!" And so it remains today. 65.107.122.222 (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool story, bro! Find some citations of scholarly work that also attest this claim and we can add them to the article. As it stands now this is nothing but a [popular] folk etymology. Addition declined. JesseRafe (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2017 

message: I added the following: yo is used "to get someone's attention (it is used this way in the Wikipedia Template:yo)".
This was reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yo&oldid=prev&diff=828091349
deisenbe (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I found that undue meta commentary unnecessary for an encyclopedia to refer to itself, especially in the lede. Maybe in a "see also" section, but it seems like trivia. JesseRafe (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion I disagree with: yo used to get someone's attention

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 1 December 2023