Talk:ta
I've heard the word used by people from AU, CA, NZ, the US, ZA, and ZW. I think the term British used this way is too specific, but I agree this is a neo-briticism in essence. I will change it to outside the US. Thecurran 02:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why? Labeling it as "Colloquial British" conveys that it is, as you say, "neo-briticism" in essence much better than implying it isn't used outside the US. It obviously is used in the US (rarely) just as it is in those other places. Saying it isn't characteristic of the UK is misleading; saying that it is something common anywhere but the US is downright wrong. --Connel MacKenzie 04:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
That's why I prefer the use of the term Commonwealth English. We don't go around marking every English word used half a millenium ago as British for good reason. Where it's used defines what it is, where it was made defines what it was. IMHO, the term British does not properly convey where it is used and so is inappropriate. What do you think?Thecurran 01:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
The current etymology:
- Most likely influenced by the Danish word tak, the Norwegian word "takk", the Swedish word tack, and the Icelandic word takk, meaning thanks, via a process of final consonant deletion see Wikipedia.
It doesn't say what was influenced, or where it came from. It's unlikely that all four languages did the influencing- some seem to have been added by "my-language-too" partisans. And, to top it off, the Wikipedia section linked to is a discussion of a phenomenon in AAVE that has nothing to do with with this term. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- I've heard this word used in contexts that aren't quite "thanks", and I could swear I'd run across an explanation that this came from Irish tá (“it is”). Dunno if that's a potentially useful avenue of investigation, but there you go. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I decided there wasn't enough reliable content in among all the flimsy guesswork, and no help forthcoming- so I just deleted the whole etymology section. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
scroll edit
73 lines long table of contents to scroll through, before seeing any first definition or part of the article, is amazing. from a usability perspective, just a thought. -Gryllida 00:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)