Re: [tied] Slavic endings

The facts about the stress are the following:

masc. nom. *-os could be stressed (mobile paradigm) or unstressed
(barytone paradigm). In both cases the result is (pre-Dybo's law)
Slavic unstressed -U.
masc. acc. *-om was always unstressed in Proto-Balto- Slavic. It gives
Slavic unstressed -U.
neuter NA. *-os (s-stems) was always unstressed. It gives Slavic
unstressed -o.

_________

Why did unstressed *-os become -U in masculines, but become -o in neuters?  This suggests that perhaps unstressed *o before *s remained /o/ rather than being raised (which would be parallel to it remaining /o/ before /d/), and that -U in the masculines is from the accusative.  This would argue for my point rather than against it.

It can be added that in the verbal system, stressed *-ós (e.g. 1pl.
mobile -mós) and *-óm (e.g. 1sg. thematic aorist *-(s)óm) both give -
U (which was stressed before Ivs^ic''s law).

________

Robert Beekes suggests that the 1 pl. ending might have been -mom in some languages, rather than *-mos (alongside *-mem (Greek -men) and *-mes).  This would then be another instance of *-om becoming -U, rather than *-os.  It would seem also that this development would then not be dependent on stress (since these verb endings were stressed yet did not become *-o), and therefore the neuter o-stem ending -o of Slavic would have to be explained as from *-od rather than from *-óm (or else from *-o, but I have become aware that this is not widely supported as credible).

Andrew