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. The Sanskrit ending probably only reflects
what would have been *-om (thematic 1ps non-indicative). So... the
above is more lazy crap from people who evidently were too busy to
come up with a proper etymology for a neglected word such as this. It
certainly looks like an etymology but it's not really saying anything.
It doesn't admit to an IE **idem either, nor would IEists do such a
thing.
The issue of no /dd/ seems to be an issue constantly raised and we
do find double-d in nouns with prepositional /ad-/, such as /adduco/.
However, the word /ad/ occurs both bound as a prefix and as a
seperate word. It's unclear how a word like /de:mum/ being reduced
to /-dem/ in rapid speech should be expected to behave if it were
so divorced from its full form. We might also question why we shouldn't
have then seen *is-em instead, if Latin speakers knew enough to say
/id-em/ instead of *id-dem. The explanation above has a few holes in it.
I can see *iddem reduced, even if irregularly, to /idem/ but the other
way is logically problematic.
= gLeN