Re: [tied] a:/o: merger

On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 18:13:03 -0000, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
<S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

>> s-stem neuters in *-os and o-stem neuters in *-om behave
>> irregularly.
>> The only plausible solution is to admit influence from *tod.
>
>A bit inconsistent. You involve merely phonetic explanations, but as
>they fail, switch to analogy (following, IMHO, one of the the most
>lamiest solutions). It would be more consistent to stay on phonetic
>ground and consider (phonologically) stressed (>*o):unstressed (>-*U)
>opposition (with later retraction of stress from the ending, cf.
>Illich-Svitych's and Dybo's research on the matter).

I'm perfectly willing to consider stress patterns, but s-neuters were
invariably stressed on the root in PIE (whereas stress on o-stem Nsg.
-ós was not uncommon). Why was the stress advanced in Slavic, only to
be retracted again after having "solved the phonological problem"?