§ 88. Of the Dual.

Cf. the literature on the Semitic dual in Grünert, Die Begriffs-Präponderanz und die Duale a potiori im Altarab. (Wien, 1886), p. 21; Brockelmann, Grundriss, p. 455 ff.

a

1 The dual is a further indication of number, which originated in early times. In Hebrew, however, it is almost exclusively used to denote those objects which naturally occur in pairs (see e). The dual termination is never found in adjectives, verbs, or pronouns. In the noun it is indicated in both genders by the termination ~yI¤;ñ appended to the ground-form,1 e. g. ~yId;ñy" both hands, ~yIm;ñAy two days. In the feminine the dual termination is always added to the old ending ath (instead of h¤'), but necessarily with aÒ (since it is in an open syllable before the tone), thus ~yIt;ñ¤', e. g. hp'f' lip, ~yIt;ñp'f. both lips. From a feminine with the ending t¤,ñ e. g. tv,xñn> (from neehÌusÛt) the dual is formed like ~yIT;ñv.xun> double fetters.

b

With nouns which in the singular have not a feminine ending, the dual termination is likewise really added to the ground-form; but the latter generally undergoes certain changes in consequence of the shifting of the tone, e. g. @n"K' wing ( ground-form kaÁnaÁph ), dual ~yIp;ñn"K., the first aÁ becoming S–ewaÖ, since it no longer stands before the tone, and the second aÁ being lengthened before the new tone-syllable. In 1 K 16:24, 2 K 5:23 b the form ~yIr;ñK.Ki (which should be ~yIr;ñK'Ki) evidently merely points to the constr. st. yreK.Ki, which would be expected before @s,K,ñ; cf. ~yIr+'K'Ki in 2 K 5:23 a, and on the syntax see § 131 d. In the segholate forms (§ 84a a) the dual ending is mostly added to the ground-form, e. g. lg<r,ñ foot ( ground-form raÁgl), dual ~yIl;ñg>r;; cf., however, ~yIn:Ðr'q. (only in the book of Daniel), as well as ~yIn:Ðr>q; from !r,q,ñ horn, and ~yIy:Ðx'l. from yxil. cheek (as if from the pluras tAnr'q.; ~yIx'l.).— A feminine dual of an adjective used substantivally occurs in ~yIT;ñl.c;[] a sluggish pair (of hands) Ec 10:18 from the sing. lce['

c

Rem. I. Certain place-names were formerly reckoned as dual-forms (so in earlier editions of this Grammar, and still in König's Lehrgebäude, ii. 437), viz.—(a) those in !yI¤;ñ and !¤', e.g. !yIT;ñDo Gn 37:17a ( locative hn"y>t+'Do, but in 17b !t+'Do ), and !t'Do 2 K 6:13; !T'r>q; Jos 21:32, identical with ~yIt;ñy"r>qi in 1 Ch 6:61 (cf. also the Moabite names of towns in the MeÖsÛaÇ inscription, line 10 !tyrq = Hebrew ~yIt;ñy"r>qi; line 30 !tlbd tb = ~yIt;ñl'b.DI tyBeJer 48:22; lines 31, 32 !nrwx = ~yIn:ÐArxo 1 S 15:5, &c.); (b) in ~¤' Jos 15:34 ~n"y[eh†' ( = ~yIn:Ðy[e Gn 38:21). The view that !¤' and ~¤' arise from a contraction of the dual terminations !yI¤;ñ (as in Western Aramaic, cf. also nom. aÖni, accus. aini, of the dual in Arabic) and ~yI¤;ñ seemed to be supported by the MeÖsÛaÇ inscription, where we find (line 20) !tam two hundred = !yIt;ñam', Hebrew ~yIt;ñam'. But in many of these supposed duals either a dual sense cannot detected at all, or it does not agree at any rate with the nature of the Semitic dual, as found elsewhere. Hence it can hardly be doubted that !yI¤;ñ and ~yI¤;ñ in these place-nameonly arise from a subsequent expansion of the terminations !¤' and ~¤': so Wellhausen, Jahrbüchcr für Deutsche theologie, xxi. 433; Philippi, ZDMG. xxxii. 65 f.; Barth, Nominalbildung, p. 319, note 5; Strack, Kommentar zur Genesis, p. 135. The strongest argument in favour of this opinion is that we have a clear case of such an expansion in the QereÖ perpetuum (§ 17 c) ~yIl;ñv'Wr)y> for ~lef'Wr)y> (so, according to Strack, evon in old MSS. of the MisÛna; cf. Urusalim in the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, and the Aramaic form ~lev.Wrü‘Î210': similarly in the Aramaic!yIr;ñm.v†' = !r'm.v†' for the Hebrew !Arm.vo) Samaria.—We may add to this list ~yIr;ñp.a,; ~yIr;ñh]n); the river country (in the Tel-el-Amarna letters naÖrima, naÕrima), ~yIr;ñc.mi Egypt, Phoenician ~rcm; also the words denoting time, ~yIr;ñh\c)' midday (MeÊsÛaÇ inscription, line 15 ~rhc), and perhaps ~yIB;ñr>[; in the evening, if the regular expression ~yIB;ñr>[;h†'-!yBe Ex 12:6, 16:12, &c., is only due to mistaking ~yIB;ñr>[; for a dual: LXX pro.j e`spe,ran( to. deilino,n( ovfe,, and only in, Lv 23:5 avna. me,son tw/n e`sperinw/n. The Arabs also say el ÇisÛaÖÈaÖn, the two evenings, cf. Kuhn's Literaturblatt, iii. 48.
Instead of the supposed dual yd;y" Ez 13:18 read ~yId;ñy". On yn:ALx; ( generally taken to be a double window) Jer 22:14, see above, § 87 g.

d

2. Only apparently dual forms ( but really plural ) are the words ~yIm;ñ water and ~yIm;ñv' heaven. According to P. Haupt in SBOT. (critical notes on Isaiah, p. 157, line 18 ff.), they are to be derived from the old plural forms (found in Assyrian) maÖmi, sÛamaÖmi, whence the Hebr. ~ym; ~ymX arose by inversion of the i, maÖmi, maÖimi, maim. It is simpler, however, to suppose that the primitive singulars may and sÛamay, when they took the plural of extension (§ 124 b), kept the tone on the ay, thus causing the iÖm (which otherwise always has the tone, § 87 a) to be shortened to im. Cf. the analogous formations, Arab. tardÌaina, 2nd fem. sing. imperf. of a verb y¾¾l, for tardÌay + iÖna, corresponding to taqtulina in the strong verb; also bibl.-Aram. !yIÐn:B' the abs. st. plur. of the ptcp. Qal of hn"B. (y¾¾l), which otherwise always ends in in with the tone, e. g. in the ptcp. Qal of the strong verb, !yxib.D†' sacrificing.

e

2 The use of the dual in Hebrew is confined, except in the numerals 2, 12, 200, &c. (see § 97), practically to those objects which are by nature or art always found in pairs, especially to the double members of the body ( but not necessarily so, cf. ~y[iroz> and tA[roz> arms, never in the dual ), e. g. ~yId;ñy" both hands, ~yIn:ñz>a' both ears, ~yIN:ñvi teeth (of both rows), also ~yIl;ñ[]n); a pair of sandals, ~yIn:ñz>aom) a pair of scales, Lat. bilanx, &c.; or things which are at least thought of as forming a pair, e. g. ~yIm;)AY two (successive) days, Lat. biduum; ~yIñ[;buv. two weeks; ~yIt;ñn"v. two years (in succession), Lat. biennium; ~yIt;ñM'a; two cubits2

f

In the former case the dual may be used for a plural, either indefinite or defined by a numeral, where it is thought of in a double arrangement, e. g. ~yIl+'g>r; [B;r>a; four feet, Lv 11:23; ~yIp;ñn"K. vve six wings (i.e. three pairs), 1 S 6:2, Ez 1:6; even ~yIn:ñy[e h['b.vi seven eyes, Zc 3:9, ~yIK;ñr>Bi-lK' all knees, Ez 7:17; ~yId;ñy"-lK' all hands, Ez 21:12; ~yIT;ñl.cim. cymbals, Ezr 3:10; ~yIT;ñp;v. double-hooks, Ez 40:43.— To express certain emphasis the numeral two is used with the dual, as in Ju 16:28, Am 3:12.— See some other remarks on the use of the dual in § 87 o and s.

g

It is not impossible that Hebrew at an earlier period made a more extensive and freer use of the dual, and that the restrictions and limitations of its use, mentioned above, belong to a relatively later phase of developmcnt. The Arabic literary language forms the dual in the noun, pronoun, and verb, almost as extensively as the Sanskrit or Greek; but in modern Arabic it has almost entirely disappeared in the verb, pronoun, and adjective. The Syriac has preserved it only in a few stereotyped forms, with which such duals as the Latin duo, ambo, octo may be compared. In the same, way, the dual of the Sanskrit is lost in the modern Indian languages, and its full use in Old Slavonic has been restricted later, e.g. in Bohemian, just as in Hebrew, to pairs, such as hands, feet, eyes, ears. On the Germanic dual, see Grimm's Gramm., 2nd ed., i. p. 814.

Footnotes:

1[1]. On. dual endings appended to the plural see § 87 s and § 95 o at the beginning.

2[1] But for ~yIk;ñr'D> Pr 28:6, 18 (which the Masora takes as two roads leading from the cross-ways) ~ykir'D> is to be read.