--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
> 1) It is apparent to everyone, I would assume, that both -*bhi and
> -*mi are not originally instrumental inflections
I agree.
> semantically: -*bhi, as Glen would know if he ever could afford a
> decent reference book, old or new, means 'around';
That's not clear to me. *bhi may be an allative particle. Beekes
reconstructs *H3ebhi, towards.
> -*mi, as we know from related languages, means 'on'; the compound
> *ambhi in PIE means 'on the circumference of'.
What is your evidence for this (*mi meaning on)? *-m is an accusative
ending. *-mi could be analyzed as *-m-i. This would be a fusion of the
accusative and dative-locative cases. IIRC, similar fusions took
place in Tyrrhenian.
In the singular we perhaps had something like this:
Nom --
Acc *-m
Gen *-s
Dat-Loc *-i
Instr *-e/o
Ablative *-d
Allative *bhi
??? *-u
This itself derives, perhaps, from an ergative system.
The plural perhaps had two systems: *-e-, *-e (cognate with PAA *-a-)
and *-s (<*-t)/-i (cognate with Uralo-Siberian *-t/-i).
The dual was originally *-k > *-H, but was expanded by borrowing from
plurals *-e and *-i.
Thus the nom pl comes from *-e-s > *-es, the acc pl *-m-t > *-m-s >
*-ns, the gen pl *-e-m > *-om, etc. Obviously there was a bit of
analogical leveling going on in the oblique cases.