Dave--

All the above assumes that 'hilo' or whatever it's origins or derivatives are, is a word.

No, it doesn't assume that.

See my note, above:

It has a simple chorus of "Oho!" which *may* suggest, for the time being at least, that "hilo" and other nonsense Oooo's were more or less interchangeable. If that is the case, then "hilo" didn't really mean anything per se. However, if that that is the case it is still interesting that those particular sounds, at a particular place and time, would be common vocables.

I'd suggest that it is actually a meaningless vocable.

I personally agree that this is a likely possibility. But I am delaying drawing a conclusion. I personally am not trying to rationalize "hi-lo" as a (meaningful) word. HOWEVER, as a vocable it is yet a *distinct* vocable that seems to have been attached to a particular cultural sphere and repertory. "yeo ho" is also an effective vocable combo, but that is associated with English maritime work chants. "oh" and "oi" are perhaps too common to track. "o-hi-o," to cite another example, is one I've seen crop up with river songs a lot. "hi-lo," I think, is appreciably distinct. It was evidently common enough within a certain repertoire of songs or among certain people that it became more fixed as something one would use in the chorus of songs.

"hi-lo" did become, eventually, rationalized as a word, even if it did not originate so. So the discovery of that is also part of this process.

I wouldn't know how to go about the sort of universal , physical/acoustic analysis you suggest. And I am afraid that would not offer any meaningful historical or cultural revelations. Help me if I misunderstand!