slang word for "Bro" -- "Brohim / Broheem" -- [Bro-ham] or [Bro-hum],

[Hen Hanna]

in a great movie, one guy (in Philadelphia?) (last name Cusack) calls his younger brother "Brohim / Broheem" -- it sounded to me more like [Bro-ham] or [Bro-hum], and i just assumed it was what he called his younger bro, when they were buds (young chums).

any ideas?


>>> ....... never heard of "broheem", although my brother and I actually did invent a slang term to refer to each other, 'brudamin.' I'll leave it to you smart dopers to work out what phrase it was more or less a phonetic variant of.



A quick googling suggests it's music/sports/hip hop talk, earliest hit dating to 2000. urbandictionary.com has no definition, so it's probably been a pretty low-flying term. It's also the name of a pro wrestler, a saxophonist, and an anglicized pronunciation of Ibrahim (Abraham).



[ I always assumed that it would be spelled "brojim" or "brohim"--that it was "bro" with a Latin or Arabic/Muslim inflection. ] <----- this sounds right.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

There is no such thing as a "Muslim inflection'.

[Bozo_D...@37.com]

The suffic 'heem' could also be a pun on Hebrew which would make it plural as in bros.

[Jerry Friedman]

A friend who went to MIT in the early '80s told me that the members
of a Jewish fraternity there used "brohim" or maybe I should spell
it "broheem", with the accent on the second syllable, as the plural
of "bro". If I remember correctly.

My brother called me "brohamer" or "broham", and I picked it up
from him. Jack Brohamer played second base for the Cleveland
Indians 1972-1975. Decent field, barely adequate hit. I thought
you needed to know all of that.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Mack A. Damia]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
<jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 7:28:30 PM UTC-6, Bozo_D...@37.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 9:09:27 AM UTC-7, Hen Hanna wrote:
>> > in a great movie, one guy (in Philadelphia?) (last name Cusack) calls his younger brother "Brohim / Broheem" -- it sounded to me more like [Bro-ham] or [Bro-hum], and i just assumed it was what he called his younger bro, when they were buds (young chums).
>> >
>> > any ideas?
>> >
>> >
>> > >>> ....... never heard of "broheem", although my brother and I actually did invent a slang term to refer to each other, 'brudamin.' I'll leave it to you smart dopers to work out what phrase it was more or less a phonetic variant of.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > A quick googling suggests it's music/sports/hip hop talk, earliest hit dating to 2000. urbandictionary.com has no definition, so it's probably been a pretty low-flying term. It's also the name of a pro wrestler, a saxophonist, and an anglicized pronunciation of Ibrahim (Abraham).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > [ I always assumed that it would be spelled "brojim" or "brohim"--that it was "bro" with a Latin or Arabic/Muslim inflection. ] <----- this sounds right.
>>
>> The suffic 'heem' could also be a pun on Hebrew which would make it plural as in bros.
>
>A friend who went to MIT in the early '80s told me that the members
>of a Jewish fraternity there used "brohim" or maybe I should spell
>it "broheem", with the accent on the second syllable, as the plural
>of "bro". If I remember correctly.

I recognized the word from a GEICO commercial:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIqGRMf3LYc

[Peter T. Daniels]

No, the masculine plural suffix in Hebrew is -im ("-eem"), not "-heem."

Compare the character in *Do the Right Thing*, Radio Raheem.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2018-04-11 22:01:04 +0200, Yusuf B Gursey <ygu...@gmail.com> said:

> On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 12:09:27 PM UTC-4, Hen Hanna wrote:

[ ... ]

>>
>> [ I always assumed that it would be spelled "brojim" or "brohim"--that it
> was "bro" with a Latin or Arabic/Muslim inflection. ] <----- this sounds r
> ight.
>
> There is no such thing as a "Muslim inflection'.

Of course not, but the hen hasn't yet picked up the idea that Arabic,
Turkish, Persian, Urdu, Indonesian and others are very different from
one another.


--
athel

[Jerry Friedman]

On 4/11/18 8:14 PM, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 19:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
> <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 7:28:30 PM UTC-6, Bozo_D...@37.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 9:09:27 AM UTC-7, Hen Hanna wrote:
>>>> in a great movie, one guy (in Philadelphia?) (last name Cusack) calls his younger brother "Brohim / Broheem" -- it sounded to me more like [Bro-ham] or [Bro-hum], and i just assumed it was what he called his younger bro, when they were buds (young chums).
>>>>
>>>> any ideas?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> ....... never heard of "broheem", although my brother and I actually did invent a slang term to refer to each other, 'brudamin.' I'll leave it to you smart dopers to work out what phrase it was more or less a phonetic variant of.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A quick googling suggests it's music/sports/hip hop talk, earliest hit dating to 2000. urbandictionary.com has no definition, so it's probably been a pretty low-flying term. It's also the name of a pro wrestler, a saxophonist, and an anglicized pronunciation of Ibrahim (Abraham).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [ I always assumed that it would be spelled "brojim" or "brohim"--that it was "bro" with a Latin or Arabic/Muslim inflection. ] <----- this sounds right.
>>>
>>> The suffic 'heem' could also be a pun on Hebrew which would make it plural as in bros.
>>
>> A friend who went to MIT in the early '80s told me that the members
>> of a Jewish fraternity there used "brohim" or maybe I should spell
>> it "broheem", with the accent on the second syllable, as the plural
>> of "bro". If I remember correctly.
>
> I recognized the word from a GEICO commercial:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIqGRMf3LYc

...

I'd actually seen that, in the gym, appropriately enough, but hadn't
connected whatever was in the captions with the mock-Hebrew "brohim".

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

But since all the other languages of Islam have borrowed heavily from Arabic,
including the onomastics, there are many recognizably Muslim names and name
components.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Yes, but inflections? I don't think they even have inflections in Indonesian.


--
athel

[Peter T. Daniels]

I doubt that an HH was using "inflection" in a technical sense. If the -im
suffix has gotten interpreted as a marker of Muslimhood, then an inflection
has been borrowed as a derivation!

[Peter Moylan]

Bahasa Indonesia is an artificial language, created as a compromise
between the many languages of Indonesia. It is basically Malay with
modifications. As you might expect from an artificial language, things
like case inflections have disappeared.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2018-04-12 18:48:21 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:

> On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 2:39:39 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2018-04-12 18:09:05 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:
>>> On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 9:20:31 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>> On 2018-04-11 22:01:04 +0200, Yusuf B Gursey <ygu...@gmail.com> said:
>>>>> On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 12:09:27 PM UTC-4, Hen Hanna wrote:
>
>>>>>> [ I always assumed that it would be spelled "brojim" or "brohim"--that it
>>>>> was "bro" with a Latin or Arabic/Muslim inflection. ] <----- this sounds r
>>>>> ight.
>>>>> There is no such thing as a "Muslim inflection'.
>>>> Of course not, but the hen hasn't yet picked up the idea that Arabic,
>>>> Turkish, Persian, Urdu, Indonesian and others are very different from
>>>> one another.
>>> But since all the other languages of Islam have borrowed heavily from Arabic,
>>> including the onomastics, there are many recognizably Muslim names and name
>>> components.
>>
>> Yes, but inflections? I don't think they even have inflections in Indonesian.
>
> I doubt that an HH was using "inflection" in a technical sense.

Probably not, but I think Yusuf was taking it to be used that way.

> If the -im
> suffix has gotten interpreted as a marker of Muslimhood, then an inflection
> has been borrowed as a derivation!

--
athel

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

OK, but I think Malay is a natural language, and I was really thinking
of Malay when I commented on Indonesian. I know more about Malay than I
do about Indonesian, which I mentioned in the first place as the
official language of one of the countries in which Islam is
overwhelmingly predominant. From what I've seen of Indonesian it looks
very much like Malay.

On the other hand Esperanto seems to have lots of inflections, as one
might expect for an artificial language invented by someone whose
native languages were Yiddish and Russian. Volapük, as I recall, also
had lots of inflections, with four cases for nouns.

I expect that the reason why Peano originally used the name Latin sine
flexione for Interlingua was to emphasize its major advance over
Volapük, Esperanto and Ido. It's a matter of amazement to me that
Esperanto still has a lot of enthusiasts. Malay would probably be
better than any of these, apart from lacking the substratum of familiar
vocabulary that makes them attractive to Europeans.





--
athel

[Jerry Friedman]

I don't think Malay has case inflections, does it?

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter Moylan]

On 15/04/18 02:34, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> On the other hand Esperanto seems to have lots of inflections, as one
> might expect for an artificial language invented by someone whose
> native languages were Yiddish and Russian. Volapük, as I recall, also
> had lots of inflections, with four cases for nouns.

Esperanto has no noun inflections, apart from the singular/plural
distinction. (-o for singular, -oj for plural.) Adjectives also inflect
for number. The only case distinction is a suffix -n, which is not often
used, for the object case. That's very different from Russian.

Verbs inflect for tense, as you would expect for an Indo-European
language. The endings are -as for present, -os for future, -is for past,
and -us for hypothetical (what some other languages call subjunctive).

The "lots of inflections" does apply to participles. Because there are
four verb tenses, there are also four active participles (-anta, -onta,
-inta, and -unta), and four passive participles (-ata, -ota, -ita,
-uta). That's a lot more participles than any IE language, therefore a
difficulty in learning the language. In practice, I suspect, only a
couple of those eight participles are used.

Apart from the participle complication, the great virtue of Esperanto is
its simplicity. Its grammar is totally regular, therefore easy to learn.
Its major fault, as you suggest in something that I seem to have
snipped, is that it's an Indo-European language, so not attractive to
those with a different heritage.

Competitors to Esperanto, like Ido and Volapük, seem to have taken the
attitude that "Esperanto is too regular, and natural languages are not
regular, so let's introduce some irregularities". I have never
understood that argument.

I should probably try to learn Bahasa Indonesia, given that Indonesia is
one of Australia's closest neighbours. Unlike Esperanto, the vocabulary
has nothing in common with languages I know, but that shouldn't be a
barrier. As I understand it, the grammar is really simple.

[Peter Moylan]

There are no case inflections, as far as I know. What it does have,
though, is extensive use of affixes that turn a word into a related word.

[Peter Moylan]

On 15/04/18 03:31, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> The "lots of inflections" does apply to participles. Because there are
> four verb tenses, there are also four active participles (-anta, -onta,
> -inta, and -unta), and four passive participles (-ata, -ota, -ita,
> -uta). That's a lot more participles than any IE language, therefore a
> difficulty in learning the language. In practice, I suspect, only a
> couple of those eight participles are used.

Sorry, I got the active/passive distinction back to front.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Or even singular and plural. If it's important to say that a noun is
plural you just say it twice.


--
athel

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 1:31:32 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 15/04/18 02:34, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> > On the other hand Esperanto seems to have lots of inflections, as one
> > might expect for an artificial language invented by someone whose
> > native languages were Yiddish and Russian. Volapük, as I recall, also
> > had lots of inflections, with four cases for nouns.
>
> Esperanto has no noun inflections, apart from the singular/plural
> distinction. (-o for singular, -oj for plural.) Adjectives also inflect
> for number. The only case distinction is a suffix -n, which is not often
> used, for the object case. That's very different from Russian.
>
> Verbs inflect for tense, as you would expect for an Indo-European
> language. The endings are -as for present, -os for future, -is for past,
> and -us for hypothetical (what some other languages call subjunctive).
>
> The "lots of inflections" does apply to participles. Because there are
> four verb tenses, there are also four active participles (-anta, -onta,
> -inta, and -unta), and four passive participles (-ata, -ota, -ita,
> -uta). That's a lot more participles than any IE language, therefore a
> difficulty in learning the language. In practice, I suspect, only a
> couple of those eight participles are used.

Distinguishing the four tenses and their four participles by nothing but
changing the vowel suggests a dangerously low amount of redundancy, thus
ample opportunity for noise to interfere.

> Apart from the participle complication, the great virtue of Esperanto is
> its simplicity. Its grammar is totally regular, therefore easy to learn.
> Its major fault, as you suggest in something that I seem to have
> snipped, is that it's an Indo-European language, so not attractive to
> those with a different heritage.
>
> Competitors to Esperanto, like Ido and Volapük, seem to have taken the
> attitude that "Esperanto is too regular, and natural languages are not
> regular, so let's introduce some irregularities". I have never
> understood that argument.
>
> I should probably try to learn Bahasa Indonesia, given that Indonesia is
> one of Australia's closest neighbours. Unlike Esperanto, the vocabulary
> has nothing in common with languages I know, but that shouldn't be a
> barrier. As I understand it, the grammar is really simple.

"Simplified Malay."

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2018-04-14 18:32:30 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:

> On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 1:31:32 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 15/04/18 02:34, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>>> On the other hand Esperanto seems to have lots of inflections, as one
>>> might expect for an artificial language invented by someone whose
>>> native languages were Yiddish and Russian. Volapük, as I recall, also
>>> had lots of inflections, with four cases for nouns.
>>
>> Esperanto has no noun inflections, apart from the singular/plural
>> distinction. (-o for singular, -oj for plural.) Adjectives also inflect
>> for number. The only case distinction is a suffix -n, which is not often
>> used, for the object case. That's very different from Russian.
>>
>> Verbs inflect for tense, as you would expect for an Indo-European
>> language. The endings are -as for present, -os for future, -is for past,
>> and -us for hypothetical (what some other languages call subjunctive).
>>
>> The "lots of inflections" does apply to participles. Because there are
>> four verb tenses, there are also four active participles (-anta, -onta,
>> -inta, and -unta), and four passive participles (-ata, -ota, -ita,
>> -uta). That's a lot more participles than any IE language, therefore a
>> difficulty in learning the language. In practice, I suspect, only a
>> couple of those eight participles are used.
>
> Distinguishing the four tenses and their four participles by nothing

> butchanging the vowel suggests a dangerously low amount of redundancy,
> thusample opportunity for noise to interfere.

>
>> Apart from the participle complication, the great virtue of Esperanto is
>> its simplicity. Its grammar is totally regular, therefore easy to learn.
>> Its major fault, as you suggest in something that I seem to have
>> snipped, is that it's an Indo-European language, so not attractive to
>> those with a different heritage.
>>
>> Competitors to Esperanto, like Ido and Volapük, seem to have taken the
>> attitude that "Esperanto is too regular, and natural languages are not
>> regular, so let's introduce some irregularities". I have never
>> understood that argument.
>>
>> I should probably try to learn Bahasa Indonesia, given that Indonesia is
>> one of Australia's closest neighbours. Unlike Esperanto, the vocabulary
>> has nothing in common with languages I know, but that shouldn't be a
>> barrier. As I understand it, the grammar is really simple.
>
> "Simplified Malay."

Yes, but you can get a long way with simplified Malay. The author of a
book (maybe "Teach Yourself Malay", but no matter) said in his preface
something like "After six months I thought I knew all there was to know
about Malay. Some years later I knew that I never would". Spanish is a
bit like that. No one would say that about Russian. From what I gather
about Navajo even people who find Russian easy wouldn't say it about
Navajo.


--
athel

[Peter T. Daniels]

It sure snookered Whorf!

[portlands...@gmail.com]

The movie was A History of Violence (2006, writer Josh Olson) in the final scene between William Hurt and Viggo Mortensen.