> It's interesting that Sanskrit /aham/ which would show your **-em,
> would all of its other pronouns 'presumably', is related to a Greekindicative
> cognate and is known to reflect *egxom. In this instance, it's quite
> apparent where the *m-ending comes from, the 1ps thematic non-
> *-om, as shown by its indicative variant in *-o:. We've alreadytalked
> about how *egxo: may mean "my being here" from *e "here", similar inbundle
> development as Inuktitut /uva-Na/ and Aleut /ti-N/ with identical
> Now it appears to me that, like many other languages, IE had a
> of variants of the 1ps like *eg(x), *egxo:, *ego:, *egom and *egxom.Probably
> I can see some stage of "pre-Sanskrit" likewise having a few.
> let's say, *aj (< *eg, as reflected in Hittite /uk/) and *aham (<misunder-
> *egxom, hence Greek /egon/). If so, I can certainly imagine a native
> speaker trying to make sense of the *aj/*aham conundrum and
> standing *-am as a special pronominal suffix when it really wasn'tThere's a parallel example from 17th century Danish: At that time
> historically. So then, *tuv-am, *id-am, *ay-am, *yuy-am, *vay-am,
> etc ensues and forever changes the Sanskrit pronominal system.