Re: Various loose thoughts

>
> Incidentally, speaking of the ins.sg. in *-mI: I do not
> recall ever having encountered a detailed discussion of its
> exact make-up or origin. That the form is old in
> Balto-Slavic is shown by Lithuanian, which has i- and u-stem
> ins.sg. forms -imi and -umi, and by the Balto-Slavic
> accentuation of these endings in the mobile i- and u-stems
> (*-imí, *-umí), which shows they are older there than
> Pedersen's law (unlike Slavic o-stem *-omI/*-Umi). The
> Slavic o-stem form, however, even if recent, may tell us
> something about the structure of the ending. There is
> general agreement that *-mI is the PIE adposition *bhi, but
> what was it added to? I would suggest the answer is the
> accusative singular: i-stem *-im-mi > *-imi, u-stem *-um-mi
> > *-umi, and later in Slavic *-om-mi > *-omi but also in
> part already *-um-mi > *-umi. For neuters other than o-stem
> neuters, the ending *-imi would of course have to be
> analogical (not **nebos-mi but *nebes-imi), but the
> accusative solution also works for C-stem masculines
> (*ka:menim-mi > *ka:menimi).

Isn't accusative usually connected with movement towards (allative),
and isn't *bhi, which has a locative sense, usually connected with
the locative (German bei + dative, < locative?); in which case it
would be -i + mi, -u + mi, which looks nice to those who think there
existed locatives in both -i and -u (and I know you're not one of
them).
On the other hand, perhaps -m + bh- > -m-; I don't know whether there
is a better explanation of the BSl-Germ-(and Ubian) -m- for -bh- in
dat.loc. pl.?

Torsten