Is 'yeah' a proper word?

>><Well, yeah, it's a lazy word. It's a corruption of 'yea' meaning, well, "yea"/"yes" but spoken informally >

Probably it is also related to German 'ja'. Has 'yeah' been in English use long enough to have direct relationship to German 'ja'? Or did 'yeah' develop long after the split from the common German/English ancestor?<<

"Yeah" is just a spelling variant of "yea", which itself comes from Old English "ge" (which should be /je/ from the orthography, but I have my doubts), which is cognate with "ja" or "já" in other Germanic languages. Hence the split occurred probably during the early Old English period (considering that West Frisian has "ja", even though this could reflect influence from other Germanic languages such as Low Franconian and Low Saxon).

Interestingly enough, in some Upper Midwestern dialects such as that here, German "ja" has been borrowed, so that one has both "yah"/"ja" [ˈjaː] and "yeah" [ˈjɛ̯æ]/[ˈjɛ̞ː] in simultaneous use...

>>Interestingly enough, in some Upper Midwestern dialects such as that here, German "ja" has been borrowed, so that one has both "yah"/"ja" [ˈjaː] and "yeah" [ˈjɛ̯æ]/[ˈjɛ̞ː] in simultaneous use...<<

One important note - at least here, the two are generally recognized as pronunciation variants of the same word if they are recognized as distinct in the first place, and the general population is unaware of [ˈjaː]'s being a loan. Most people are not even aware that they say [ˈjaː] in the first place here.

As stated, 'yeah' comes to us from 'yea' ("yes") < ME 'ye'/'ya' < OE 'gea'/'ge', akin to OHG 'ja'

I wonder if 'yep' derives from 'yeah'; while 'yup' derives from 'yah' < 'ja'

>>As stated, 'yeah' comes to us from 'yea' ("yes") < ME 'ye'/'ya' < OE 'gea'/'ge', akin to OHG 'ja'<<

I forgot about OE "gea", which explains the vowel in "yeah" today. The vowel in the version surviving as "yeah" had to be short, which would have yielded /ˈja/ in Middle English. Such must have not undergone Open Syllable Lengthening, and thus would have been able to become /ˈjæ/ by the time of New English (whereas if it had undergone such it would have become /ˈjeɪ̯/ or /ˈje(ː)/ in New English dialects).

>>I wonder if 'yep' derives from 'yeah'; while 'yup' derives from 'yah' < 'ja'<<

I doubt it, as "yup" is far, far more widespread than "yah"/"ja" is. "Yah"/"ja" is really only used in areas where Germanic languages other than English were once spoken, unlike "yup". "Yup" almost certainly just reflects "yep" with vowel reduction.

As for "yep", that itself is a recent innovation from "yes", probably due to the influence of "nope", which is too a recent innovation. (Etymonline has 1891 and 1888 as the most recent firm attestations of "yep" and "nope", respectively.)

<As for "yep", that itself is a recent innovation from "yes", probably due to the influence of "nope", which is too a recent innovation. (Etymonline has 1891 and 1888 as the most recent firm attestations of "yep" and "nope", respectively.)>

That's about right Sonny. As I recall, the first time I heard tell of anyone saying "yep" was in 1890. I was in my 6th and final year of school. I asked Hester Banks if she wanted to go to the church shindig with me and she said "yep". She was sweet on me as I was the beat'nest fella in that one room school. I was keen to marry her too and I courted her until ought-three. I dumped her because she was so all-fired lazy. After that she took up with some border ruffians and we didn't hear hide nor hair from her after that. I expect she's dead now anyway, so I don't give her no never mind.

About "yes", one important note is that in many dialects it is not the default affirmative word, but rather has very specifically emphatic connotations. At least here, the normal affrimatives are "yeah" and "yah", with "yeah" tending to be more favored in moderately high registers. Rather, "yes" is used here really only for providing an unequivocably affirmative answer to a direct question, for providing extra emphasis in other affirmative uses, in very formal speech, and not infrequently in the kind of derisive way that one also hears other formal usages like using "mother" or someone's legal first name as a form of address. At least here, "yes" just comes off as overly emphatic or at least overly formal in very many contexts, and hence is not really recommended in actual speech except when one wants to be specifically emphatic or especially formal or one wants to very clearly answer a specific question.

Mind you, actually, that "yes" comes from Old English "gise" or "gesi", which itself was an emphatic form in contrast to "ge" and "gea" formed from "ge" or "gea" followed by "si" (a subjunctive form meaning effectively "be it!" here)...

That should be "gese" not "gesi" above.

Actually, I would probably compare "yes" at least here with German "jawohl" in usage - it is not a word that one actually uses all that frequently in normal everyday speech here...

That said, it seems that "gea" actually had a long vowel, as "géa". So for it to have yielded present "yeah", the vowel just have undergone shortening to /æ/ before /æː/ as raised to /ɛː/, merging with /ɑ/ to yield Late Middle English /a/, or must have undergone irregular shortening and then lowering at some point from /ɛː/ rather than having undergone the Great Vowel Shift so as to yield New English /æ/. I should have guessed that, as the spelling "yea" strongly implies Late Middle English /ɛː/, even though that may not accurately reflect what has become "yeah" /jæ/ in most English dialects today.

On this note - I am not really the best person at knowing the specifics of English historical linguistics, and much of what I am saying here is largely conjecture, all things considered, so I might be wrong here.

<<moderately high registers.>>

Travis, when I hear or read someone refer to a high register, I normally think of the pitch or octave. However, when you use it in the above post I have the feeling you mean something else. Can you define 'register' in the sense you used it? Does it mean the same thing as 'social class'?

>>Travis, when I hear or read someone refer to a high register, I normally think of the pitch or octave. However, when you use it in the above post I have the feeling you mean something else. Can you define 'register' in the sense you used it? Does it mean the same thing as 'social class'?<<

For a relatively good definition of the term "register" in sociolinguistics, go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(sociolinguistics)

<<For a relatively good definition of the term "register" in sociolinguistics, go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(sociolinguistics)>>

Perfect. That's very helpful and even led to other links that explain some of the stuff we talk about on this forum.

<<,That should be "gese" not "gesi" above. >>

Actually, 'gesi' would be alright too as it shows the ur-form of the word: 'gǽasí(e)' > 'gíesi' > (West Saxon) 'gese'

West Saxon usually only shows final vowels in -e, -u, and -a but if we roll the clock --so to speak--back on these endings we would find that many -e ending come from -i endings (ríce < ríci < Gmc ríkjam); other -e endings are from -æ < -a (þanne < þannæ < þanna)

-u from Gmc -u (sunu < sunu < sunuz) or -o (lanu < lano < lanó)

When citing OE words, I usually cite the "original" or earliest form of the word if I can

<<(West Saxon) 'gese' >>

That should be 'gése'