On Sun, 30 May 2004 10:29:12 -0700 (PDT),
enlil@... wrote:
>Miguel:
>> My Latin dictionary gives the correct derivation:
>>
>> [is + dem, cf. quidem : qui:dam. Perhaps originated in the
>> n. idem (originally id-em) heard as i-dem; otherwise we'd
>> expect *iddem]
>
>It doesn't make sense why this /-dem/ should start with /id-em/
>because where then does /id-em/ come from? As has already been
>mentioned, practically all Sanskrit pronouns end in -am but this
>is identical with -am in /aham/, which we know to come from *egxom
>as shown in Greek as well.
Greek <ego:> shows no such thing.
If the Indo-Iranian pronominal suffix -am is related to
Latin -em as in <idem>, there is no basis anymore for
anything like *h1eg^(h)om. Latin and Greek have *h1ego:, all
the others have *h1ég^ (I-I *h1ég^h).
The connection between Lat. id-em and Skt. id-ám looks
pretty obvious and solid to me. Moreover, I haven't seen
any alternative suggestion that even comes close to being
plausible.
The Goth. n.sg. form ita (also þata, hita, and the
accusatives ina, þana, hina) are not comparable to idem,
idám, but appear to have a suffix *-o:. It's tempting to
compare that to the -o: in Lat/Grk. ego:, but Runic -ika
"I", cannot come from *h1ego: (it _can_ come from *h1ego:n =
Grk. egó:n = Lat. ego:, but also from *h1egom).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...