Emmus or something
colf...@minn.net
On 16 May 1997 18:44:08 GMT, dga...@uhl.uiowa.edu (Dennis Gaunt)
wrote:
>While watching a M*A*S*H rerun recently Colonel Potter said
>something that sounded like "emmus". The context was that of seeking
>confirmation of a situation such as "is that true?". Anyone
>know what the phrase or whatever means.
I'm not sure how you intend "emmus" to be pronounced. Do you mean like
the two letters "MS"? If so, could it possibly have been his
midwestern drawling version of "NS," for "no s***"?
Carol from Mpls.
Robert Lieblich
Dennis Gaunt wrote:
>
> While watching a M*A*S*H rerun recently Colonel Potter said
> something that sounded like "emmus". The context was that of seeking
> confirmation of a situation such as "is that true?". Anyone
> know what the phrase or whatever means.
I've checked a (Biblical) Hebrew/English dictionary on the Web and come
up with "'emeth", actually pronounced (with accent on second syllable in
each case) "emmes" by the Ashkenazi and "emmet" (remember, accent on
second syllable) by the Sephardic. It means, more or less, "truth." I
think it moved into Yiddish as "emmes" with accent on the first
syllable but cannot confirm (the Yiddish/English on-line dictionary is
still under construction).
But would Col. Sherman T Potter be speaking Yiddish in Korea in the
Fifties, even with all those Jewish scriptwriters at his disposal?
Bob Lieblich <lieblich#erols.com>
Simon R. Hughes
Robert Lieblich <lieb...@erols.com> wrote in article
<337CD8...@erols.com>...
Sounds to me like "Emmaus" the place Jesus revealed himself to Peter and
one more disciple after his (Jesus') resurrection. The disciples were not
sure if the story told them was true until that point. It seems to fit into
the context and it is more well known than most Yiddish words.
===
+ From the digits of Simon R. Hughes + mailto:shu...@sn.no +
+ Headers changed to prevent spamming. +
+ To reply, remove *spam-blok* from address line. +
+ http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1194/index.html +
"When you're winning a war, what's one railway?"
- Colonel von Strohm
Peter Schultz
Thomas Schenk wrote:
>
> Dennis Gaunt wrote:
> >
> > While watching a M*A*S*H rerun recently Colonel Potter said
> > something that sounded like "emmus". The context was that of seeking
> > confirmation of a situation such as "is that true?". Anyone
> > know what the phrase or whatever means.
>
> Was he perhaps saying "Emma's (whatever)"?
> Maybe "M.O.S", military abbreviation for job or specialization?
>
> The Yiddish and biblical theories noted elsewhere in the thread seem a
> bit contrived for a farmer from Hannibal, Missouri.
>
> You will probably get more informed results to your query at
> alt.tv.mash, where they have memorized all 250 scripts.
>
> Tom
> --
> *******************
> Dr Thomas M Schenk
> Laguna Beach, California
I think Robert Lieblich is exactly right. The scripts were written
by hip, modern writers who did not always aim at 1950s army English
if they could otherwise make snappy dialogue. Emmes is normal
Yiddish, from the Hebrew word for truth. (It also occurs in the
awful movie "The Oscar" -- Tony Bennett, playing a Jewish Irishman,
shouts, "It's the truth! The emmes!")
Emmes has a similar history to "tokhes," meaning butt, which is
Yiddish from the normal Hebrew word for "under" or "underneath."
Thomas Schenk
Thomas Schenk wrote:
> Colonel Potter's wife's name was Emma.
> Was he perhaps saying "Emma's (whatever)"?
Ignore the earlier bad information.
Emma was, in fact, Colonel Potter's mother.
Mildred was his wife, as everyone knows.
Tom
Robert Lipton
colf...@minn.net wrote:
: On 16 May 1997 18:44:08 GMT, dga...@uhl.uiowa.edu (Dennis Gaunt)
: wrote:
: >While watching a M*A*S*H rerun recently Colonel Potter said
: >something that sounded like "emmus". The context was that of seeking
: >confirmation of a situation such as "is that true?". Anyone
: >know what the phrase or whatever means.
It's Yiddish. Since Yiddish is spelled in the Hebrew alphabet, all you
can ask for is the standard transliteration, whcih is "Emmis".
Bob
N.Mitchum
Dennis Gaunt wrote:
--------
>.......
A trick question, obviously. If it was a re-run, Col. Potter
could not have been watching it. Even I know that this character
was killed off by the writers.
--- NM
Avi Jacobson
Robert is almost right. The Hebrew word for truth is "emeth", pronounced
"emet" in Standard Israeli Hebrew and "emes" in Ashkenazic (Eastern
European) Hebrew. The word was borrowed into Yiddish, where it is
pronounced "emmis" (the double m does not indicate a particular
pronunciation of the mm, but is there to color the e-orthograph into [E].
--
Avi Jacobson, email: avi_...@netvision.net.il | When an idea is
Home Page (Israel): | wanting, a word
http://www.netvision.net.il/php/avi_jaco | can always be found
Mirror Home Page (U.S.): | to take its place.
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/4034 | -- Goethe
Robert Lipton <lip...@dorsai.org> wrote in article
<5litl3$j...@dorsai.dorsai.org>...
Adrian Tan
Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
> Dennis Gaunt wrote:
> >
> > While watching a M*A*S*H rerun recently Colonel Potter said
> > something that sounded like "emmus". The context was that of seeking
> > confirmation of a situation such as "is that true?". Anyone
> > know what the phrase or whatever means.
>
Just idly speculating idly... could the Colonel have said "m.s.", an
abbreviation for something?
Anandashankar Mazumdar
In article <337CCC...@mail.lafn.org>, "N.Mitchum"
<aj...@mail.lafn.org> wrote:
> A trick question, obviously. If it was a re-run, Col. Potter
> could not have been watching it. Even I know that this character
> was killed off by the writers.
Col. Sherman T. Potter survived even through the short-lived spin-off
"Aftermash" (such a clever pun!). It was Lt. Col. Henry Blake who was
killed off when McLean Stevenson left the show to pursue a much more
successful career including such successful shows as "Condo," "Dirty
Dancing" (the t.v. series), "Hello, Larry," "In the Beginning," and "The
McLean Stevenson Show."
Obbligato: "such successful shows as ..." is awkward. Is there a better
way to put this?
Ananda
Baty
"N.Mitchum" <aj...@mail.lafn.org> wrote:
>Dennis Gaunt wrote:
>--------
>>.......
>
>A trick question, obviously. If it was a re-run, Col. Potter
>could not have been watching it. Even I know that this character
>was killed off by the writers.
>
>
This is why I keep reading a.u.e. Thank you, Mr. Mitchum, you have
brightened an otherwise dull day.
Linda
aj...@lafn.org
In article <mazumdar-020...@ppp-24-134.tidalwave.net>,
mazu...@dcez.com (Anandashankar Mazumdar) wrote:
-------
> > A trick question, obviously. If it was a re-run, Col. Potter
> > could not have been watching it. Even I know that this character
> > was killed off by the writers.
>
> "Aftermash" (such a clever pun!). It was Lt. Col. Henry Blake who was
> killed off
That's right. There *were* two colonels, one whose trademark was fly-
fishing and the other, the one with the cavalry shtick. So Potter
could indeed have watched a re-run and said "Emmus or something!"
-------
> [...] McLean Stevenson left the show to pursue a much more
> successful career including such successful shows as "Condo,"[...]
>
> Obbligato: "such successful shows as ..." is awkward. Is there a better
> way to put this?
>......
Since you wrote "successful" just four words earlier, you hardly have
to repeat it again one more time. As for this particular construction,
I myself see nothing very wrong with it, though the combination of
"such successful" is not entirely sweet-sounding.
Cadence: In which of its contradictory senses do most people now
regard "obbligato": to mean "indispensable" or "dispensable"? As
essential, or as extraneous?
--- NM : voi che sapete
(E-mailed copies welcome)
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
BILLM...@delphi.com
Quoting Baty<baty from a message in alt.usage.english
>>A trick question, obviously. If it was a re-run, Col. Potter
>>could not have been watching it. Even I know that this character
>>was killed off by the writers.
>>
>This is why I keep reading a.u.e. Thank you, Mr. Mitchum, you have
>brightened an otherwise dull day.
>Linda
>.
Uh, it was Col. Henry Blake that was killed. Col. Potter was
CO through the end of the series and appeared in a short-lived
sequel.
Bill McCray
Lexington, KY
(BillMcCray at delphi dot com)
Richard Pence
BILLM...@delphi.com wrote:
>Uh, it was Col. Henry Blake that was killed. Col. Potter was
>CO through the end of the series and appeared in a short-lived
>sequel.
Tsk. Tsk. And in an English usage group, at who.
Bob Cunningham
richar...@pipeline.com (Richard Pence) said:
[...]
> I can't resist noting that it, indeed, was
>"Col. Henry Blake that was killed." It died in a helicopter crash. <G>
While reading that, I was struck by the thought that we commonly use a
neuter pronoun to refer to a person. The second "it," which -- as
intended -- is funny, made me think about the first "it," which is not,
even though both "it"s are referring to the same person.
Since there is an understandable tendency to dislike "that" to refer to
a person, why isn't there the same feeling about "it"? Why do we say:
I liked Jane, but it was Mary I liked most?
Why not:
I liked Jane, but she was Mary I liked most"?
I know that the second way is not idiomatic English; I just think it's a
little strange that it isn't.
On the other hand, consider the following two examples:
I suddenly noticed the man. It was the same man as before.
I suddenly noticed the man. He was the same man as before.
Both are good English, and both seem to say the same thing.
Come to think of it, though, of the following two examples:
Tom noticed the man. It was the same man as before.
Tom noticed the man. He was the same man as before.
the first is unambiguous, but in the second it's not immediately clear
whether "He" refers to "Tom" or "the man."
And in
Tom noticed the man. He was standing by the door.
Tom noticed the man. It was standing by the door.
the second is unacceptable as an alternative to the first, but the first
is completely ambiguous.
Note that in rephrasing the first one to remove the ambiguity, the
importance of the comma is well illustrated:
Tom noticed the man who was standing by the door.
Tom noticed the man, who was standing by the door.
The two have significantly different meanings. Only the second is
equivalent to:
Tom noticed the man. He was standing by the door.
Bob Cunningham
richar...@pipeline.com (Richard Pence) said:
[...]
Why not:
And in
In rephrasing the first one to remove the ambiguity, the importance of
the comma is well illustrated:
Tom noticed the man who was standing by the door.
Tom noticed the man, who was standing by the door.
The two have significantly different meanings. Only the second is
equivalent to one interpretation of:
O.Det
Bob Cunningham wrote:
> richar...@pipeline.com (Richard Pence) said:
[much snipping going on....]
> Since there is an understandable tendency to dislike "that" to refer to
> a person, why isn't there the same feeling about "it"? Why do we say:
>
> I liked Jane, but it was Mary I liked most?
> Why not:
> I liked Jane, but she was Mary I liked most"?
"It" is indefinate. The object of "whom I liked the most" is "it".
as in "I liked Jane, but Mary -- it was she whom I liked the most."
> I know that the second way is not idiomatic English; I just think it's a
> little strange that it isn't.
>
> On the other hand, consider the following two examples:
>
> I suddenly noticed the man. It was the same man as before.
> I suddenly noticed the man. He was the same man as before.
>
> Both are good English, and both seem to say the same thing.
Actually, the first says what you probably intended, while
the 2nd is redundant (and a bit awkward) in that it says that
the man, himself, didn't change. The 1st says that you noticed
the same man twice.
>
> Come to think of it, though, of the following two examples:
>
> Tom noticed the man. It was the same man as before.
> Tom noticed the man. He was the same man as before.
>
> the first is unambiguous, but in the second it's not immediately clear
> whether "He" refers to "Tom" or "the man."
Also the ambiguity/awkwardness as above.
>
> And in
>
> Tom noticed the man. He was standing by the door.
> Tom noticed the man. It was standing by the door.
>
> the second is unacceptable as an alternative to the first, but the first
> is completely ambiguous.
The first is also the two-sentance version of a split infinitive.
"Tom noticed the man, standing by the door."
(oops! Not "split infinitive", but the other one... <sigh>)
>
> In rephrasing the first one to remove the ambiguity, the importance of
> the comma is well illustrated:
>
> Tom noticed the man who was standing by the door.
> Tom noticed the man, who was standing by the door.
Check-out:
> Tom noticed the man standing by the door.
> Tom noticed the man, standing by the door.
Bob Cunningham
"O.Det" <ol...@deletespam.netcom.com> said:
>Bob Cunningham wrote:
[...]
>> Since there is an understandable tendency to dislike "that" to refer to
>> a person, why isn't there the same feeling about "it"? Why do we say:
>>
>> I liked Jane, but it was Mary I liked most?
>> Why not:
>> I liked Jane, but she was Mary I liked most"?
>
> "It" is indefinate. The object of "whom I liked the most" is "it".
> as in "I liked Jane, but Mary -- it was she whom I liked the most."
If you'll think about it a little more I think you'll realize that "it"
is not the object of anything; it is the subject of the clause "it was
she." The phrase "whom I liked the most" modifies "she." The object of
"liked" is "whom."
>> I know that the second way is not idiomatic English; I just think it's a
>> little strange that it isn't.
>>
>> On the other hand, consider the following two examples:
>>
>> I suddenly noticed the man. It was the same man as before.
>> I suddenly noticed the man. He was the same man as before.
>>
>> Both are good English, and both seem to say the same thing.
>
> Actually, the first says what you probably intended,
I didn't probably intend anything. I merely gave two examples that can
be interpreted to mean the same thing.
>while the 2nd is redundant (and a bit awkward) in that it says that
> the man, himself, didn't change. The 1st says that you noticed
> the same man twice.
The second statement, interpreted differently from the way I intended in
order to make my point, is not at all redundant. It would mean that the
man had neither reformed nor become worse. Where do you see any
redundancy? I also don't see anything at all awkward about it,
whichever of the two interpretations is taken.
As I said, both of the examples can be interpreted to mean that I
noticed the same man twice.
[...]
>> And in
>>
>> Tom noticed the man. He was standing by the door.
>> Tom noticed the man. It was standing by the door.
>>
>> the second is unacceptable as an alternative to the first, but the first
>> is completely ambiguous.
>
> The first is also the two-sentance version of a split infinitive.
> "Tom noticed the man, standing by the door."
> (oops! Not "split infinitive", but the other one... <sigh>)
(I'm sorry, but I don't have the slightest idea what you're driving at
in the last paragraph.)
That my interpretation is correct can be seen by preserving the exact
form of the two examples but replacing "man" with "bookcase":
Tom noticed the bookcase. He was standing by the door.
Tom noticed the bookcase. It was standing by the door.
This should make it clear that
Tom noticed the man. He was standing by the door.
is completely ambiguous.
>>
>> In rephrasing the first one to remove the ambiguity, the importance of
>> the comma is well illustrated:
>>
>> Tom noticed the man who was standing by the door.
>> Tom noticed the man, who was standing by the door.
>
> Check-out:
>> Tom noticed the man standing by the door.
>> Tom noticed the man, standing by the door.
I don't know why you want me to check that out, but I find it
interesting to note that your second example is ambiguous. It can be
interpreted to mean the same as:
Tom, standing by the door, noticed the man.
or it can be interpreted to be a shortened form of:
Tom noticed the man, the one standing by the door.
By the way, the AUE FAQ says:
alt.flame.spelling (which fewer sites carry than carry
alt.usage.english) is the place to criticize other people's
spelling. We try to avoid doing that here (although some
of us do get provoked if you spell language terms wrong.
It's "consensus", not "concensus"; "diphthong", not
"dipthong"; "grammar", not "grammer"; "guttural", not
"gutteral"; and "pronunciation", not "pronounciation").
So, I suppose it's okay for me to say in relation to your post that it's
"sentence," not "sentance." (But I mustn't say anything about your
"indefinate" instead of "indefinite.")
Bob Cunningham
shughes@sn*spam-blok*.no (Simon R. Hughes) said:
>On Sun, 01 Jun 1997 22:06:36 GMT, ad...@lafn.org (Bob Cunningham)
>scribbled:
[...]
>> Since there is an understandable tendency to dislike "that" to refer to
>> a person, why isn't there the same feeling about "it"? Why do we say:
>>
>> I liked Jane, but it was Mary I liked most?
>>
>> Why not:
>>
>> I liked Jane, but she was Mary I liked most"?
>
>[snip]
>Have you heard of *anticipatory it*?
Yes, I've heard of the grammatical principle involved. Now that you've
reminded me of it, though, the best thing I can do with it is to use it
to provide an alternative phrasing of the point I raised. I might say
now, why do we use anticipatory "it" when anticipatory "she" would be
more explicit?
>The "it" functions as a grammatical subject until the logical subject
>is introduced later in the clause.
"She" could do the same, while giving a more informative inkling of what
is to come.
Let me say once more that I know we don't say "she was Mary I liked
most." I was merely commenting on what seems to me to be a curious
feature of our imperfect language.
Simon R. Hughes
On Sat, 07 Jun 1997 20:34:07 GMT, ad...@lafn.org (Bob Cunningham)
scribbled:
Hmmm... But that would involve inflecting the third person singular
pronoun by gender... Oh, hang on a bit...
warui...@gmail.com
> On 16 May 1997 18:44:08 GMT, (Dennis Gaunt)
>
> >While watching a M*A*S*H rerun recently Colonel Potter said
> >confirmation of a situation such as "is that true?". Anyone
> >know what the phrase or whatever means.
>
> the two letters "MS"? If so, could it possibly have been his
> midwestern drawling version of "NS," for "no s***"?
>
> Carol from Mpls.