You're absolutely right that the translations ignore the -i suffix. Sorry to mislead you in the previous post. I was writing at 6:00am.
Davidson parses מְקִימִי
as Hiph. part. sing. masc. dec. 3b with parag. י
(comp. §8. rem. 19).
If you refer to §8 remark 19
, you find the following comment:
Like the noun, it [the participle] often has parag. [paragogic] י appended to the construct state; as שֹׁכְנִי סְנֶה the inhabitant of the thorn-bush, De. 33.16.
Gesenius doesn't use the word "paragogic." Instead, he calls this ḥireq compaginis
and writes the following in section 90m
Otherwise than in the constr. st. the Ḥireq compaginis is only found in participial forms, evidently with the object of giving them more dignity, just as in the case of the construct forms in î. We must distinguish, however, between passages in which the participle nevertheless does stand in close connexion, as Gn 49.11, Is 22.16 (חֹֽצְבִי and חֹֽקְקִי, also in impassioned speech), Mi 7.14 (probably influenced by Dt 33.16), ψ 101.5, 113.7; and passages in which the î added to the participle with the article merely serves as an ornamental device of poetic style, e.g. in the late Psalms, 113.5,6,7,9 (on verse 8 see n), 114.8, 123.1.
In the next section
, he says that Ps 113.8 represents a textual error that should be read as לְהוֹשִׁיבוֹ