Talk:OK

West African Etymology

Not so much Choctaw that I wanted to add, but the reference to an important book from IU Press: The African Heritage of American English that makes the already compelling evidence presented in the African Origin section more weighty. Mobilian Jargon is of course Choctaw based in part, so the fact that the term was phonetically shared would certainly not have hurt its currency. Would suggest rearranging the article to place the linguistically interesting and credible Native American and African etymology stories first before the "word games" theories that do certainly smell like "folk etymologies". --SashiRolls (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I am unsure why ShashiRolls seems to want to suggest that Professor Allen Walker Read was a "folk etymologist". His research into the origins of "OK" may have been given a good kicking by Dr Jim Fay but it has been widely accepted over the past 40 years, including Alan Metcalfe's recent book, which is published by the OUP (and referenced at the aend of the article). Since the "Boston word games" origin for OK is the most widely accepted one among scholars, it seems to me to be smelling of non-NPOV favouritism to promote the Native American and African etymology stories above Read's etymology - and indeed, even calling this article "Okay" and not "OK" smacks of a non-NPOV promotion of the anti-Read school over the Read school.

To sum up: Read's etymology, as the most widely accepted one, should go first. Zythophile (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Choctaw

Yes in Choctaw is yau, ah, i, yome (Choktaw grammar, p. 53) There is just one Ok ! translated as well ! now, as, I dare you ! (sic. p. 55 - 56, as wel as Ok hoh "no". Cyrus Byington, Grammar of the Choctaw language). Re: previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources -- I am new at this so I am not familiar with the problem cited here about the Choctaw etymology. Can someone give me a hand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPFay (talk • contribs) 14:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The whole section on Choctaw was a textbook violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, essentially an essay in support of a theory that is generally rejected by relevant authorities (most obviously, dictionaries). I've deleted it, but it may be possible to salvage something. JQ (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The essay advocating Choctaw etymology does not belong, do not put it back. There was a long essay advocating the Choctaw etymology of "okay" that I took out. It does not belong; the content is original research (see WP:OR), and is in disagreement with the accepted etymology. Furthermore, the tone is not encyclopedic; it reads like a high school essay advocating a particular position. It has been removed multiple times, but someone keeps putting it back. If you are planning on putting it back, before doing it please read and familiarize yourself with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, which are core concepts involving what is and is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Benwing (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

AHEM!

(Edit) WAR! (HUH!) Good god, y'all! What is it good for? Absolutely nothin'! Folks, let's please be grownups. We have a disagreement on our hands, as it seems. That's fine; knee-jerk reversion is not. It doesn't move the article in a productive direction, especially when it is done in such a manner as to create the rancid odour of sock puppetry and with tendentious, belligerent edit summaries (viz. this, this, and this). Per BRDC, discussion is what's called for at this juncture. Remember we work by consensus here, not by trying to shout each other down. Let's all have a cuppa tea and make our arguments -- with reference to applicable Wikipedia policies -- for and against inclusion of some or all of the material in dispute. Please and thank you. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C06:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

As somebody who isn't involved, can you explain why you think the long and apparently much-referenced item doesn't belong? What's wrong with it? How could it be improved so that it could stay, in your opinion? - 10:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read above this subsection. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Just being "long" and "much-referenced" (or much worked-on, or whatever) isn't sufficient for content to belong. As I described above, the most basic problem with this content is that it's an original synthesis, which violates WP:SYNTH, one of the core Wikipedia principles. As defined on that page, an original synthesis is a "synthesis of published material that advances a position", and that is exactly what this content is. Rather than simply summarize what established authorities believe, the content in question is putting together a large number of references in an attempt to prove something that these references do not say, which is that "okay" is likely from Choctaw. In fact, the scholarly sources that discuss this issue at all are in agreement that the Choctaw etymology is not likely. Opinions that do not have significant acceptance in reliable sources do not belong in Wikipedia, no matter how much people like ChoctawMan and ChahtaGal may personally believe in them and no matter how many references the content may contain. (And I should add that doing things like using single-purpose accounts and accusing editors of "vandalism" who are doing nothing of the sort is not going to win you very many friends in Wikipedia-land.) Benwing (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Benwing. This is a clear-cut case. Trying to insert your own ideas, without a good WP:RS is just wasting everybody's time. Mention the claim and include a brief link to the best available source.JQ (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Origins and Etymology

What about this? link Word Myths: Debunking Linguistic Urban Legends By David Wilton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.200.136.10 (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There is an ancient european word 'ochee' or 'oque', which means a hollow or cave, ie.'home'. In Somerset in England, there is a place called Wookey, where there are caverns in which people lived for thousands of years, even during the ice-ages. 'Home' and therefore acceptable, even comfortable. So when a thing was good, it was 'OK'. Enough said?92.176.83.212 (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

An excellent example of how easy it is to think up a plausible-sounding etymology of a short word made of two common sounds.

Also, it's an excellent example of why such etymologies should be ignored unless they are accompanied by real evidence that they actually exist and were used. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Nominate for Good Article?

I strongly disagree. see below --SashiRolls (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC) --I withdraw my objection, if anyone finds OK interesting :)

Hey -- I think this article ought to be considered for 'good article' status (criteria are here) after a few suggested improvements. These are the criteria for 'good article' status:

1. Well-written: I could nitpick a bit here, but the article is coherent and legible. It's clear that a number of editors have helped prune out cruft. My recommendation in this area before nomination: The section on spelling variations includes a long table of international variants, which is redundant with the section on international usage. I think that could be cleaned up considerably.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Lots of sources (both online and print) are listed in the references section. Suggestion: There are a few inline notes 'clarification needed', 'who?', and the like that need to be addressed.
3. Broad in its scope: The article covers the possible etymologies (somewhat deeply), but also its use in popular culture, as a computing term. What other article references Martin Van Buren, Billy Murray's record label, Ned Flanders, and HTTP protocol?
4. Neutral: Given the competing theories for the origins of 'OK', the article does a good job of discussing the best-sourced theories, lists lesser-sourced theories in a separate article, and manages to exclude completely OR theories like "my teacher said it stood for Oliver Kromwell". Suggestions: The section on the Choctaw etymology is twice as long as the sections on Oll Korrect and Old Kinderhook; can it be pruned? An editor (Benwing) recently removed the Choctaw section completely and replaced it with a quote from a source (The Random House Dictionary of American Slang, 1994) that discredited that etymology; his edits were reverted, but the article should probably acknowledge that there is some controversy here.
5. Stable: The page is frequently edited, though (with the exception of the Benwing edit above), most recent edits are minor in nature. There aren't any ongoing edit wars at this point.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: The article shines in this area -- there are only four images, but the first two are historical, relevant, and interesting; the latter two show that there's still present-day variation in the spelling of "OK"/"Okay".

I haven't formally nominated the article yet, because I think it's verrrry close to qualifying but not quite there based on the suggestions I've made above. --Heath 71.62.123.39 (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The article strikes me as advocating the theories of a certain Mr. Read. It would be useful to have live links to any of his writings. I have tried to soften the pride of place accorded to the mass market / generalist Random House Dictionary of American Slang and have added one more serious (and more recent) scholarly reference. I cannot pretend to be an expert on the question, but I don't think those primarily basing themselves on Read can either.--SashiRolls (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason the article "strikes" you as advocating Read's theories is that these are the theories generally accepted as scholarly consensus. NPOV requires us to reflect consensus. If there are scholarly sources making contrary arguments (as in the source you quote), these may be noted, but do not merit removing the fact that a consensus exists. The Random House source is used because it happens to be one that explicitly discusses and dismisses the other etymologies. Most dictionaries simply list either or both of the two primarily accepted etymologies and don't even mention the others at all. In the case of the source you present, it does not seem to go beyond simply noting the existence of similar-sounding discourse markers in various African languages. From a linguistic perspective, this evidence does not meet the burden of proof. Coincidences of all sorts of similar-sounding words exist between different languages, which is why linguists require stronger proof. Prof. Holloway is not a linguist and does not seem to present any documentary evidence of the sort that linguists would accept, i.e. evidence of any causal link between the African-language discourse markers and the English word "okay". Prof. Read spends a great deal of effort tracing exactly such links, which is the reason that his etymologies are generally accepted and others are not. Benwing (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the scholarly record is much stronger in favor of Read's etymology than this article claimed. The article appears to have been extensively edited by people trying to debunk the standard etymology in favor of Choctaw and/or West African etymologies. I rewrote the section accordingly. (Before trying to alter this, please go and read the sources yourself ...) Benwing (talk) 05:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

For the moment, I'll reserve judgment on your claims. I've downloaded a few fairly recent grammars from a French scholar on West African languages and will have a look myself at how the confirmatory marker that Holloway talks about is used. Thank you for adding all these citations, but do keep in mind that (at least from my point of view) the tone of the article is anything but neutral. For example the line about the black panthers, is this an argument? The verb "resurrected" is likewise rather partial, sir. If we are to work together to improve the documentation on this arcane question, please, let's be respectful of the actors involved. SashiRolls (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition, it is (unfortunately) usually the case that scholarly writings in linguistics and other humanities fields cannot be found freely on the Internet. All of the references to Read, Cassidy et al. can be found through JSTOR, but unfortunately only the first page of JSTOR articles can be freely accessed. However, if you happen to attend a university, you can usually get full JSTOR access through the university's library system, and you may also be able to find it through your local public library or similar sources.Benwing (talk) 05:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Enhancing this article

I'm used to reading Wikipedia articles in several languages and it appears that other versions of this one suggest other explanations as for the origins of "okay". Why not check and, if necessary, complete the existing English Wikipedia article? Those in English are generally more detailed, but elements are to be found in articles written in other languages. Different theses are given in the very short French article. This is a suggestion and probably derives to another debate but I hope this comment will be taken into account by those of you who are specialists in linguistic matters. If you need some help to translate French articles don't hesitate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gouigoui63 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Without English-language sources/references, these don't really belong in the English-language wikipedia, because readers can't check the veracity. That's particularly important for this topic, because off-the-cuff explanations (like the one you heard in the Canadian military) are all over the place. This article will only have value if it provides sourcing for them, and not just "it is sometimes said that ..." or "many people have heard that ..." - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that I entirely agree, the fact that all these stories have come up is interesting in itself, especially given the probable origin in slave speech. --SashiRolls (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:RS that requires or even strongly encourages English-only sources, and for some topics it is conceivable that all of the sources are in other languages. It is an insult to the reader to assume that they are incapable of checking the veracity of a source just because it's in another language. This is especially true for languages that are widely spoken in the English-speaking world, and is also especially true now that we have online tools to assist in the translation. If the source is reliable then by all means it should be included regardless of the language of the source. Also please see WP:Verifiability#Non-English sources, which basically states that foreign language sources can be used unless a reliable English language source can be found that says the same thing. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 15:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove verifiable data

I have fished back up evidence that has been deleted by SpacePotato in a recent edit. His objection with my "editorializng" was taken seriously however, and I let the quote speak for itself. I couldn't resist adding a bit of background information on Read from the introduction to his book. It is important to have an idea of the fellow behind the archival work. Of course, the (written) archives Read had at his disposal probably did not include the data that is available 50 years later... (linked in this article) That is why Read himself didn't care much whether his etymology for OK stuck for all eternity. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have fished back up evidence that has been accidently suppressed by Benwig in his 1 Mar 2012 edit (I have verified the exactness of the citation at the internet archive here: http://www.archive.org/stream/cihm_41222/cihm_41222_djvu.txt (search for "great fifh jump up"):

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;...

Likewise some sensible arguments were deleted for no apparent reason.

Regardless of who is right or wrong on this issue Mr. Benwig, erasing data and argument that do not fit with your theory (even if it remains the theory most widely printed for the moment) strikes me as objectionable. I am not the source of the first citation, I am the source of some of the deleted argumentation, no worries on that. The basic idea of the argumentation could also be attributed to the linguist Paul Werth (http://linguistlist.org/issues/4/4-705.html), though at the time I had not yet read his comments. Another source of discussion on the question is here: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?EtymologyOfOkay

I have tried in my last edit to remove the uncharitable adjectives, verbs, and unnecessary qualifiers from the March 1st edit. However it is clear that the data must be put back in, whoever put that here contributed a gem.

I apologize for the ruthlessness of my tone, Benwig, I do respect the material you have contributed, you have taught me a hell of a lot that I did not know. Thank you! However, I do want all the POV to be available. And, yes, I am more persuaded of the creolist hypothesis, m'kay? :)

SashiRolls (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate that a neutral pair of eyes look through for POV errors of my own, as well as readability which I think may be becoming a problem for this section. We need to be more concise. SashiRolls (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It's OR to call this "earliest verifiable written attestation" unless you actually have a linguist who thinks so. For one thing, the OCR quality of that copy is appalling. ("I {Jjfeatened him ^^ith fevere punifhmeq|") Without seeing an image of the page, that word could be virtually anything. – Smyth\^talk 06:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's the image of the page: http://www.archive.org/stream/cihm_41222/cihm_41222#page/n151/mode/2up/search/%22great+fifh%22. I understand your point regarding the word "earliest". What I am saying is "the earliest of the verifiable written attestations present on this Wikipedia page" which is admittedly a more restricted claim, difficult to write without awkwardness! I'll settle for an indefinite article. SashiRolls (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Major Revision

I would appreciate that discussion take place before removing structural elements in the etymology section. I propose that the last section "miscellaneous arcania" be deleted, I do not see how it contributes anything of importance (other than length) to the article. SashiRolls (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I was working on a revision User:Jnestorius/Okay which I don't think I'll ever get back to. The Etymology sections at least are fairly thorough. jnestorius^(talk) 20:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Jnestorius. Your page did pop up in my research, but since it was a User page I hadn't really investigated your excellent impartial presentation. For the official article, it does seem to me that brevity and impartiality should be key. SashiRolls (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope nobody minds my revision; I did it before noticing this discussion. The previous structure of the article was terrible, with no logical ordering and the entire Choctaw etymology being covered twice over in two different sections. I also removed the unreferenced synthesis speculating that the Choctaw usage came from West African slaves. – Smyth\^talk 05:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, thank you for your contribution. The comments about Mobilian Jargon were explicitly sourced to a dissertation on Mississippi Choctaw, I will add another scholarly reference on the well-known trade language, which is an important factor of exchange between the major languages of the day. This is not Original Research (OR), but shared published knowledge. I agree that the organization needed work, it seemed to me that the wisest was to let the facts speak for themselves in a first section: earliest attestations. (forgot to sign) SashiRolls (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Please also see my comment in the previous section about the 1784 citation. – Smyth\^talk 10:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Good comments, I've added a link to the image for the 1784 citation. and have humbled down the wording. It seems to me that the Read / Misc. Arcania sections would still benefit from consolidation, significant streamlining, and renaming. In hopes that the Read experts will hear this call. SashiRolls (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

OK or Okay ?

can we please clarify if it OK or Okay. I don't like Okay. I only use OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.24.51 (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I use OK too I don't use okay Polop7 (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Occitan

I have removed a long speculation about Occitan from the south of France as a source of OK, becuase it had no reference - the only ref went to a wikipedia article. It was all placed by one new account. The stuff about "new rochelle" in particular was incredibly speculative. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"Oll Korrekt", "Ola Kala" (although a Greek myself, i find the suggestion absurd, no matter how many sources one cites) and the rest of the OK-origin theories are unsubstantial. Even the "Old Kinderhook" assumption is obviously a posterior use of an existing expression. Why do you have such a hard time grasping the correct etymology (OK, from Oc), even suggested in the List of proposed etymologies of OK? Are you so satisfied with a list of ridiculous theories, that you cannot stand the obvious, more than a ludicrous "good faith" time span?

"New Rochelle" stuff is considered speculative, whereas Choctaw, Western African, Boston fad etc are all ..OK?

Steliokardam (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The items with more extensive listings have lots of good sources. Yours doesn't. That's the difference. It doesn't matter what you (or I, or any wikipedia editor) finds absurd, or our opinions about obvious etymologies - sourcing matters. Your item lacks it, so it is kept in short item in the list of all the various guesses. That's why it keeps getting reverted; find a couple of good sources and things might change. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

By sourcing, I don't mean sources which prove that the etymology is true - as the article makes clear, nobody knows where OK came from. I mean sourcing which shows that a particular hypothesis has been the topic of discussion and analysis in reputable sources. Anybody can dream up a possible derivation; those guesses should only be part of this article in detail if that derivation has been the subject of discussion and analysis. Otherwise this article would be swamped with various ideas (as it once was). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Crystal clear, dude! Ola Kala, oke, okeh, waw-kay, Очень Хорошо, oll korrect! Steliokardam (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The pronunciation of "oc" was /ɔk/ not /oʊkeɪ/. Little French kids nowadays do indeed pronounce OK /ɔk/ the first time they see a dialogue box, but by the time they are six years old or so they laugh about it.  :) I think you were probably joking, but I'm not sure Wikipedia articles are really the place for such jesting. Personally, I don't think it overly likely that there was one trewe etymology, but that the 3 main etymologies discussed probably all had a role in the expansion of the term... SashiRolls (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This has been removed again a couple of times, six months later, for the same reasons - the only source was a Greek-language blog, not useful for the English-language wikipedia. No amount of indignation will change that! If this etymology it has been discussed by a reputable source that editors in the English-language wikipedia can read, then great, let's include it! If not, then no. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

"mnewel English"

The word "mnewel" appears to be a typo here, but I have no idea what the author intended. Even worse -- several sites have quoted this portion of the article. If someone knows what was intended can we get it corrected? Otherwise the phrase "and mnewel English" should be removed. Donperk (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, it's an in-joke. I have removed it; if there's a more legitimate aspect, it needs to be supported or clarified. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Important evidence

New article: http://mentalfloss.com/article/50042/whats-real-origin-ok. Softlavender (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

"No consensus" on likely origin

I believe that it is clear that the predominately supported etymology among reliable sources is the Boston origin. That possibility should presented as the primary, most likely origin, with the other suggestions being as more secondary theories. I don't believe there is "no consensus" for the origin; rather, there is a consensus with some outlying viewpoints still being held. To say that consensus does not exist is misleading. Deadbeef 14:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

A cursory look at the history of this article and its talk page would indicate there's anything but a consensus, neither on Wikipedia nor in real life. I'm not convinced these edits conclusively put the issue to rest (not enough to declare consensus, anyway). But, I suppose we should seek meta-consensus here: Is the Boston abbreviation fad the accepted origin? Can we stick a fork in the debate once and for all? Blackguard 18:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The claim that there is no consensus is vague (consensus among whom? the wider public? linguists in general? linguists specialising in English? experts on "OK"?) and not supported by any source; the obvious solution is to simply leave this part out, as it is unnecessary. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have returned that sentence because it *is* necessary from a readership point of view: Otherwise readers leap straight into the first proposed etymology, which brings a strong assumption that the Boston fad is the correct etymology. The sentence is a contextual setup reflecting material in the article, not some reference-worthy statement of fact. Removing it just confuses readers. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's nonsense. The section titles and the "See also" link make it clear that the first etymology, like all others that follow, is a proposed etymology, not necessarily the correct etymology. We do not cater to readers that are too inattentive to miss a "proposed" that occurs in a large font in a section title and even gets repeated immediately afterwards. We write for readers that we assume are not morons and need not explained everything multiple times. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No, we write clearly to minimize possible confusion, especially since wikipedia is read by many people who don't speak English as their first language. We don't sneer at people who fail to see things exactly as we do.

Your replacement sentence is, in my humble opinion, pompous and hard to read, and it makes a claim at least as unsupported as the one it replaced. But since you feel strongly about it, we'll leave it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"...decreasing order of prominence in the literature". Oy vey. What is the literature? Is someone going through the literature and keeping count? Blackguard 07:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Prominence is easily verified by inspecting the cited sources. The section on the Boston abbreviation fad is quite clear about this point. But if our readers and editors can be trusted to be this smart, it's probably not necessary to state the order explicitly.

Note that this is not Simple English Wikipedia. Readers who have trouble with "long words", Latinate vocabulary and specialist lexicon, will find most of Wikipedia incredibly pompous and impenetrable. This is one of the most frequently aired complaints about Wikipedia, after all. Our policy is to use the introduction sections as lay-friendly summaries, but the body of the article can place higher demands on the reader. The sentence in question was not part of the introduction, but I have now revised the whole part. If you can improve the readability of the article without sacrificing precision, you are welcomed to do so. It's a wiki. It's just easier said than done. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Back to the original issue, which made me object to the existing wording. As scientific consensus points out, consensus does not mean unanimity. However, Read's explanation is so widely accepted that I must question the claim that there is no consensus, and suspect that it is a way to sneak in POV by amateurs who feel defensive about some alternative explanation and wish to preserve a perception that the matter is not, for all intents and purposes, settled, so that their alternative explanation can receive more attention than it would otherwise if Read's etymology were portrayed as essentially the consensus. I see no real reason to challenge this conclusion, and no reason to disagree with Benwing, who is very knowledgeable about linguistics.

As a common but striking expression whose origins are not well-documented nor obvious, and which, due to its simplicity, makes it very easy to come up with plausible-sounding explanations (see backronym), OK attracts an inordinate amount of attention from amateurs. Quite probably not a single competing explanation, however, rises to the level of Read's research, not even close; essentially, they're largely baseless speculation and just-so stories, which you can believe or not. Read may not have been able to prove his story beyond reasonable doubt, either, but he made such a strong case from circumstantial evidence that all these reference works have fallen in line, leading to an effective consensus indeed, as far as I can tell. Even if I cannot back this perception with citations, if no source states something about consensus explicitly either way or the other, we should not do that either, given how it is not exactly obvious that there is no consensus. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, poking around and reading more into the topic, I think you're taking a reasonable position here, even though I'm not convinced that "effective consensus" has reallhy been reached (but I'm not all that knowledgeable). Your current wording and organization of the section seems reasonable. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC) .

Deletion - claim was not reflected in source

I deleted the following claim: "In present-day American English, both "kay" and "m'kay" are attested modern pronunciations of the term. The fact that the onset /mk/ is foreign to English phonotactics may lend some support to the idea advanced by Dalby that "okay", along with "uh-huh" (yes) and "uh-uh" (no) -- and presumably the corresponding intonation patterns on "mm-hm", "mm-um"—have a West African origin. (ref. http://linguistlist.org/issues/4/4-705.html)" I checked the source, and the above claim is nowhere to be found. I deleted the whole thing. And even if the source did contain the claim above, I question using that link as a source: we do not know the credentials of the people posting there. They might be very highly educated individuals, but it's a messaging list, not peer reviewed or anything of the kind. Furthermore, the reason I decided to check the link in the first place: to suggest that South Park's "M'kay" somehow has African origins is ludicrous. It's just a slurred, lazy way of saying "okay" - "mk" is not an onset, it might as well have been spelled, "mmmm, 'kay?" --Tsuka (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that you left the claim directly referenced on linguist list, for which I thank you. In fact, I believe I was synthesizing the work in Holloway, Joseph E.; Vass, Winifred Kellersberger (1993). The African Heritage of American English. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0253328381, but my memory is a bit hazy so I won't restore the claim.

However, regarding m'kay as having its origins on South Park, I can assure you that I've heard m'kay all my life and that it can indeed sound like an onset in many a dialect. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I never said or suggested "m'kay" originated with South Park. I merely said that to suggest African origins to something which is obviously just slurred speech, is ludicruous. And it is still not an onset: 'M' is the sound you naturally make when your mouth is closed, and "mmkay" (or "mmokay") is easily the result when you start speaking before opening the mouth. There are examples of such even in my native Norwegian and, I'll wager, most languages. I know the stand-alone 'n' in Japanese often turns to 'm' (like "kempo" instead of the correct "kenpo") - sometimes sounds are introduced because they are easier. They do not require some foreign origin. At any rate, "mmkay" is sometimes pronounced with an undefined vowel, which actually sounds a bit like 'm' - this goes to show that "okay" is the word one has in mind, and the sounds produced are the way they are because one is too lazy at the moment to form a proper 'O'. Tsuka (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

oka

In the table "oka" is listed as an SMS or chat version, although more than that it seems to me like a variation used there by Spanish speakers (maybe also Portugese?). In Spanish you don't end words in consonants like K and the K is voiced "ka" in Spanish, while in English oka is a rather pointless abrviation saving just one letter when the shorter ok already exists. If it extended to English speakers, it may well have come from Spanish speakers. Quién es como Dios? (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

---

• Okay → OK
• OK → OK (disambiguation)

– Okay is simply a respelling of OK, and all of the history of the phrase lives within the latter. Compare OK with okay on Wiktionary and note the vast difference in substance. Relisted Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 21:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC) WikiWinters (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom--ngrams are inconclusive [1] but logic seems to lie with the proposal. Red Slash 21:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
• If so, then page OK is a long disambig page, not a redirect. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I think what Anthony Appleyard is saying is that OK is not currently a redirect to Okay, it is a separate dab, so this move request is incomplete. You need to add the OK page to the move request. After which, here is a decision matrix:

1. Is OK more WP:COMMONNAME than Okay?
2. Is the-word-OK-meaning-"all right" the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the sequence-of-letters "OK"?

Answer to #1	Answer to #2	Move old Okay to...	Move old OK to...	New OK is...
Y	Y	OK	OK (disambiguation)	the-word-OK-meaning-"all right"
Y	N	OK (word) Okay (no move; see below)	OK (no move)	disambiguation (as now)
N	Y	Okay (no move)	OK (disambiguation)	redirect to Okay
N	N	Okay (no move)	OK (no move)	disambiguation (as now)

My answers are Yes to both #1 and #2. (I think that OK is the most common spelling, with okay second, O.K. third, and ok fourth. It's an exaggeration to say all the history lives within OK; some is with okay, and strictly speaking O.K. with punctuation was the form under which it took off (although the very first attestation is o.k.) jnestorius^(talk) 23:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

OK (no pun intended), here: Talk:OK#Requested_move --WikiWinters (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@WikiWinters:, I fixed your edits. Next time please follow the directions on WP:RM#Requesting multiple page moves. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was a single-page move at first. Thanks. --WikiWinters (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The word is "Okay" and the abbreviation is "OK". The spelling of the word is more notable than its abbreviation. That, and in the United States of America, a standard use of "OK" is the abbreviation for the state of Oklahoma. Leave everything as is; the term "OK" does not have a clear primary topic. Steel1943 (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No, the word is actually "OK," as "okay" is a phonetic respelling of "OK." --WikiWinters (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• First off, the purpose of this move discussion, as proposed, is to designate a new primary topic for the term "OK", and I do not believe that it should be the word "okay". That, and in all movies' closed captions/interpretation captions and media that I have seen, the more common spelling of "okay" IS "okay". Also, per the dictionary that I am looking at right now, the word IS "okay" and "OK" is an abbreviation for it. Cheers, Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• I agree, as I personally find "OK" to feel less natural than "okay," but the dictionary sister site for Wikipedia, Wiktionary, lists "OK" as the "original/real word," not "okay." --WikiWinters (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• @WikiWinters: Thanks for clarifying that. However, this important question remains: Do you, the nominator, honestly believe that "okay", the word, is the primary topic for the term "OK" over ALL of the other examples on OK (disambiguation)? And if so, why? Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, because it is from which all of the derivatives are. It has the most etymology. I'd like to hear the input of others. --WikiWinters (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• @WikiWinters: Good. Just making sure, since that is not specifically stated in the rationale of this nomination. I would highly recommend adding that to your opening nomination rationale so that other editors will understand this discussion. (However, I still oppose for the reasons I stated above.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. WikiWinters is correct that OK is the original form and okay is just a phonetic expansion. As far as I know, all linguists who have discussed the term have done so under the rubric OK, as here and in this book. I also suspect, though I cannot prove, that historically OK has been the more commonly used form, with okay perhaps having come to rival it in relatively recent times. Deor (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support @Steel1943: Dunno what dictionary you consulted, but Oxford, American Heritage, Collins, Macmillan, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, and Webster's New World all have "okay" as a variant of "OK". Of course the fact that OK was the original spelling is not hugely relevant (see Etymological fallacy) but what the authoritative sources are saying is that OK is still the most common spelling. If you sincerely believe (whereas I don't) that a majority of Americans think of Oklahoma rather than okay when they read "OK" then you might favour moving okay to OK (word). jnestorius^(talk) 13:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Moving Okay to OK (word) is definitely a plausible option; essentially, I'm opposed to making the word the primary topic for the term "OK". There's too many other options. Steel1943 (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• It's not the number of options that matters, it's their relative salience. There are plenty of long dab pages of form Foo (diambiguation) where Foo is not a dab; e.g. USA (disambiguation), Elvis (disambiguation). jnestorius^(talk) 16:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

A term that requires parenthetical disambiguation isn't necessary when natural disambiguation - in this case the very common alternate spelling "okay" - is available. The discussion should be between moving to "OK" or leaving it here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Cuchullain's comment seems response to Steel1943's comment rather than to mine. The discussion on moving Okay to OK necessarily includes discussion of moving the existing dab OK to "OK (disambiguation)"; that is the substance of this subthread. jnestorius^(talk) 07:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support moving Okay to OK if it's the primary topic of "OK" (which I suspect it is), strong oppose a move to OK (word) or similar. This is textbook WP:NATURALDIS; if just "OK" is not available, the common alternative Okay is preferable natural disambiguation over anything that requires a parenthesis.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I was unaware of WP:NATURALDIS and have amended my above table accordingly. jnestorius^(talk) 07:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. WikiWinters appears to be correct, original use was "OK", and "okay" is a phonetic respelling, a hypercorrection, and it looks odd. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Change the article text to OK

Folks who wanted to change the title should now change the article so that all those "okay" references now say "OK" to agree with the new title. I've tweaked the intro but there are hundreds more. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, maybe we should have moved it to "okeh" ^^ Saying that OK is a phonetic rendering of okay is a bit off. /ok/ is a phonetic spelling of "oak" said with a French accent. Are you serious about respelling all of the instances of "okay" in this article to represent the NewSpeak spelling? ^^ ps hi David. SashiRolls (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Source

• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/11/origin-of-ok-expression-video_n_6133026.html ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Huffington Post is a poor source because it is cut-and-paste pseudo-journalism at its worst - this is a classic example, nothing but "somebody else said something" ... so the real link is [2]

Original Research in West African etymology section

The section on the West African theory of the etymology of OK contains this text:

"one can certainly wonder at the fact that this standard of written proof does not account for the illiteracy in which the West African speakers were kept during the period of slavery in question."

While one can certainly wonder this, unless this point is made in a reliable secondary source (and it should be rephrased if so), this constitutes WP:ORIGINAL_RESEARCH. I've tagged it as requiring a citation, and I'll remove it in the near future if it's not cited. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum, and speculation, no matter how interesting, doesn't belong here. Arathald (talk) 06:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The Simpsons and South Park

Can someone give me a legitimate reason for a reference to "The Simpsons's" and "South Park's" use/spelling of OK? We have spellings and usage for multiple cultures, which are quite interesting, but then a western cultural reference at the end. Not that there's any problem with western culture. What I mean to say is, The Simpsons and South Park don't deserve to be seen as such a substantial cultural influence as to get their own references.

The reason I don't take issue with the Little Rascals' inclusion is because "Okie dokie" is definitely something that I've heard before (unlike The Simpsons'), and it definitely seems as though it was responsible for popularizing, if not developing, the usage. This against South Park's usage of "Mmm kay", which isn't original; that phrase had been around long before South Park.

I won't remove these for now, because I'm sure someone wants to make a case for them.

Although obviously nowhere near their peak both have been fairly massive parts of popular culture in many, many different countries and for a very long time. Each character is also very deeply associated with their respective OK-based catchphrase. They are absolutely substantial cultural influences, not just in the west and no matter your personal exposure or lack thereof. And even if it was only mainly relevant to English-speakers... to put the cultural impact in perspective, d'oh is literally in the Oxford English Dictionary.

On the other hand the mentions seem very lazily thrown in and should be worked on, but then the entire article is just a massive mess... "spelling variations" and "international usage" basically just repeat the same things and lack coherency, and of course the article ends with a linux reference. Always a linux reference, ugh. 85.227.181.208 (talk) 06:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Always a Simpsons reference, equally ugh! I think they're insufficiently important to be included, but you're right that the whole section is badly organized and confusing. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Alternative origin

While far be it from me to muddy the waters, has it not been considered that when the seas were lower and Britain was still joined to the rest of 'Gal', in the old common language 'ogg', now 'ochee' or 'hueco' (a hollow, horizontal or vertical) could be a cave or 'home'? In England we have Wookey, a place of caverns in which people lived, perhaps even during the ice-ages, too. So if you were at home, it was OK. The origins of language go back beyond academia and the Neanderthal monosyllables to our animal past. No source other than evidence and common sense.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:OK&action=edit&section=new# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.79.71.163 (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The waters are already muddied! Many, many, many possibilities have been considered, which is why more than intriguing speculation is needed. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on OK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.illinoisprairie.info/chocokeh.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Supposed "Maya" variant

Article currently says Octl is a "Modern Maya variation of "Okay" from Maya language in contact with English. Frequently used in the Yucatán Peninsula. -tl is added to make it phonetically similar to other words in Maya." In addition to lacking a citation, this is linguistically implausible: no Mayan language has the consonant commonly spelled "tl". (Mesoamerican words ending in "tl" are generally from Nahuatl, which is unrelated to the Mayan languages and spoken in an entirely different part of Mexico.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.212.3.4 (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Referencing

Regarding DavidWBrooks's removal of {{citation style}} from the article, I would like to make it clear that I have tagged the page because I noticed that the Notes and References sections contain similar content and could possibly be merged to eliminate confusion as to where the article citations are located. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. In My ever-so-Humble Opinion, that's not enough of a problem to put a big hatnote on top of the article, although it is worthy of discussion here and of repair.

Hatnotes can really throw off readers, especially new readers, making them suspicious or mistrustful of articles. I think they should be used with more caution than experienced editors sometimes use - particularly a hatnote that doesn't reflect problems in the content of the article but reflects problems in its presentation. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Usage

I have just removed a long, unsourced list of ways that OK can be used, under the "Usage" subsection, which smacked of vague original research. Several of them are mentioned in the introduction. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)