Re: Some questions

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, glen gordon <glengordon01@...> wrote:

> Miguel:
> > Miguel has explained it as a mere merger of
> > former abl. **-abhí-âtu and dat. **-abhi-á-atu.
>
> For added perspective, I personally have a different
> view of pre-IE. I think that, being that *bHi appears
> to be a free particle in the earliest stages of IE
> (given things like *e-bHi 'by here' in Anatolian and
> *am-bHi 'around' and the clear-as-day evidence in
> English of "by" for pete's sake!), the case forms
> with *bHi are late (post-Anatolian).
>

Would you say 'nauti:s' ('nauta:bus') coming from *naxw-t-&(m)bhy-os
makes sense? Or do you propose a different analysis.

Would you consider -os being a genitive/ablative equivalent to
Romance "de" here?

Have you got any reservations against an interpretation for the
dative "to those from the the ship-crew".
I.e. does it make sense to use the ablativ as a dative?

Or is this 'ambivalence' caused by a merger of two former separate
endings?

Lars