From: Andrew Jarrette
> Nsg o-stems PBS *-as (3)> -uh > -U> Asg o-stems PBS *-am (2)> -uN > -Uneuter o-stems? I believe I've read that it is held to have come from
> > 2. What is the origin of Common Slavic *-o the nom./acc. sg. of
*-od which is an importation from the pronouns -- correct? But why do
neuter s-stems also have *-o in their nom./acc. sg., while retaining
*-es- in other cases and numbers?>The endings *-om (o-stems)
> NAsg n. o-stems PBS *-a[d] > -o.> and *-os (s-stems) should have yielded -U, as indeed happensI don't get the whole idea of 'importation from pronouns'.
> in many neuters (now masculines) which in PIE had the stress
> on the stem (e.g. *dhwórom > Slav. dvorU). Although stress
> plays no part in any of the other Auslautgesetze, there is a
> possibility that *-om became -uN while *-óm was still -áN,
> thus facilitating the shift to *-á (< *-ód) [after which
> surviving cases of *-áN became *-úN anyway?].
What would be the point of that? Suppose instead PIE
*-od/-o:d was originally a partitive ending (?= Lat. de,
?= Slav ot) and *-od -> gen. -a, *-o:d -> nt. nom.,acc. -o ?
______I personally like the idea presented in the paper written by the Finnish academe that you directed me to, that Slavic *-o in neuters comes from a variant ending IE *-o instead of *-om that Slavic developed, most likely to parallel the endingless i-stem and u-stem neuters, at a time when neuter gender was still an important distinction in the ancestor of Slavic and thus an ending different from the masc. acc. sg. might have been desirable.Andrew