Re: Fr/lat/ru tu-vous/tu-vos/ты-вы: etymology ?

On Sep 26, 3:00 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You claimed that the Americanism "okay" is Magdalenian.

What I claim is this: Magdalenian OC means right eye,
Magdalenian AY means left eye, a firm look into each
other's eyes was the Magdalenian way of saying yes,
and the words for it were OC AY. The eye aspect of
this early 'yes' survived in occulus occhio for eye,
and in eye itself. The yes aspect of this compound
survived in Occitanian oc for yes, and in aye aye
for yes. The ego aspect survived in Latin ego and
in English I (pronounced like aye or eye). The
Magdalenian OC AY would have survived in Scottish
och, aye, a rather fatalistic affirmation, 'oh, it is so,
alas' (if I understand the exlamation properly), and
it would have survived in Choctaw okeh 'it is so'.
When an American president (was it Truman?)
was asked where the affirmation okay comes from,
he mentioned the Choctaws. I assume okay is
a derivative of Scottish och, aye, that must have
come to the USA with the many poor Scottish
who were shipped over the Atlantic ocean and
labored in America. But as both och, aye, and
Choctaw okeh have the same meaning of an
affirmation, they might both go back to hypothetical
Magdalenian OC AY 'right eye, left eye', testifying
to an early time when a firm look into each other's
eyes was a yes and sealed a contract. This
compound would have survived in the remote
Scottish highland, and it would have traveled
to North America by the end of the Magdalenian,
and then, some hundred years ago, the two
sparated traditions would have united in the
famous okay given as OK. That's a far more
detailed explanation than your mocking line
suggests. Okay?

.

Relevant Pages
Loading