--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
> m. i-dem + f. ea-dem + n. i-dem = Jens analysis is wrong
>
> Either you're wrong or the following sample of a multitude of
> links across the globe are wrong:
I don't feel obliged by any of them. Some I'm rather proud not to be
associated with. But seriously: I have seen a Latin grammar before,
even on the inside. I do not feel obliged to project earundem (sic)
all the way back to PIE as if it were a direct descendant of a PIE
wordform not affected by anything other than phonetic laws. But
since it is the same pronoun that occurs in Latin id and Sanskrit
idam, it is worth trying to look for a match for the Indo-Iranian -
am which sits on practically every pronoun of that branch. And in
the one pair idem : idam we can really have a nucleus from where it
can have started. Latin would then give us a hint about its
function, idem meaning 'the same'. Then aham would be originally 'me
myself', tu-am 'you yourself' and so on, making excellent sense. The
same segmentation is needed for quid-em 'admittedly, nevertheless';
for function one may compare Vedic idám. cid 'that nevertheless'. As
always there are problems, as the vowel of Oscan tiium, siom which
could be equated with that of Toch.B tuwe. One wouldn't like to
separate Osc. -om from Lat. -em, so perhaps the acc. of consonant
stems, Lat. -em, Osc. -om (by analogy), has played a part. And the
Tocharian form is open to a variety of interpretations.
If ideas have to be licensed before they are presented here we
should close down the list. Still, the one I'm referring to is
rehearsed in Walde-Hofmann and Wackernagel and now in Untermann's
Osc.-Umb. dictionary. It cannot be illegitimate to consider it.
Jens