Latin: Why is it īdem, not isdem?

This page also exists in Latin and German.

16/09/2026

The Latin demonstrative pronouns appear to be able to be supplemented with the suffix -dem: ea + dem > eadem, etc.. According to this, you would expect the m. sg. to be isdem, not īdem. The unexpected form can be explained by a reanalysis, analogy and a regular sound change.

The productive suffix was in fact not -dem, but -em. It could be added to is and id (PIE *(h­1)is and *(h1)id) to make *isem and idem. The reanalysis here occurred in the neuter: id-em was reinterpreted as i-dem.

Then the rest of the paradigm was adapted in analogy therewith, including *is-em > is-dem. Interestingly, eōdem and eādem (cf. eō and eā) were not formed through this analogy; instead, they were among the forms that supported it, because eō and eā originally ended with a -d.

Then came the sound change: Vsd > V̄d. Accordingly, isdem became īdem. Although this happened in the third to fourth century BC (i.e. before the written record), ISDEM is in fact attested as an archaism in a source from 45 AD.

The words sīdere and nīdus are also examples of this sound change. Both come from the PIE root *sed („to sit“). This verb forms the present tense thematically, in the form Ci-CC-e/o-: *si-sd-e/o-. With the prefix *ni- (“down”1), you can form *ni-sd-os (“a place to sit down”1). Both words (*sisdo- and *nisdos) display the PIE /isd/ that would become Latin /īd/.

Notes

1 „nieder“; „Ort zum Niedersitzen“

Sources

Meiser, G. 1998. Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache.

Sommer, F. 1914 & 1977. Handbuch der Lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre (the „second and third“ edition from 1914 and the fourth edition from 1977).

Weiss, M. 2020. Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin (second edition).

Responses

  1. […] Diese Seite gibt es auch auf Latein und auf Englisch. […]

    Like

Leave a Reply