[tied] Re: Bader's article on *-os(y)o

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

> So it would seem
> fairly sensible that a hypothetical *id-sem would mean "that
> (particular) one", an emphatic version of simple *id. Likewise we'd
> expect *is-sem for the masculine and *ea-sem for the feminine

during

> some prestage of Latin.

[...]

> Just a thought.

Why would anybody say "he (as) one thing", "she (as) one thing" with
*sem in the neuter? What syntax or phraseology dos this reflect? If
none, what is the point in investing all this imagination in an
attempt to avoid accepting the obvious, that Sanskrit -am and Latin -
em reflect a common IE *-em known from precisely these examples? Or
is the idea that *id-sem is superior to *id-ém in accounting for
<idám> and <idem> because it produces neither?

Jens