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

I can only offer some unhelpful comments:

> Now it appears to me that, like many other languages, IE had a bundle
> of variants of the 1ps like *eg(x), *egxo:, *ego:, *egom and *egxom.
> I can see some stage of "pre-Sanskrit" likewise having a few. Probably
> let's say, *aj (< *eg, as reflected in Hittite /uk/) and *aham (<
> *egxom, hence Greek /egon/). If so, I can certainly imagine a native
> speaker trying to make sense of the *aj/*aham conundrum and misunder-
> standing *-am as a special pronominal suffix when it really wasn't
> historically. So then, *tuv-am, *id-am, *ay-am, *yuy-am, *vay-am,
> etc ensues and forever changes the Sanskrit pronominal system.

Nothing wrong with the process, but is *aj ever atttested in Sanskrit? Or
do you just need to assume it to make your theory work?

>how do we explain Latin then with
> /id-em/, /ibid-em/ and /quid-em/?

It also appears on tamen, tandem and others. Could it be the source of
the -im adverbs?

>We find *sems attested in Greek /heis/.

Also in Greek /hama/ = together

Peter