Dual(lat. dualis) is used to designate two objects, either paired by nature (parts of the body, etc.) or by custom.

The division into singular, dual and plural may be a relic of a distant era when counting was rarely used in practice, and the grammatically expressed forms meaning "one", "two, pair" and "many" were sufficient in most practical cases.

The category of dual number existed in the ancient languages ​​of the Indo-European family, in Semitic and many other languages. In the vast majority of modern Indo-European languages, the dual number has disappeared, leaving only more or less numerous traces of its existence. The system of the dual number in the Indo-European proto-language was probably richer in forms than its systems in individual Indo-European languages, although, undoubtedly, already in the era of the proto-language there was only one form for the nominative, accusative and vocative cases for all nominal stems.

The difference between the forms of the genitive and local (Genitvus and Locativus) duals in Avestan (other Indo-European languages ​​have only one form for these two cases), as well as the presence in various individual Indo-European languages ​​of two types of endings for the dative and instrumental duals, suggest that in the Indo-European proto-language, the forms of genitive and locative, as well as dative and instrumental, differed from each other and only coincided in certain languages. Moreover, the difference between genitive and local has been preserved in the Zende language, and various shapes dative and instrumental were distributed among different individual languages ​​(see “Dative case”). These assumptions have only a certain degree of probability and cannot be proven.

The historical forms of the Indo-European dual represent only three forms: one for the nominative, accusative and vocative cases, one for the genitive and locative (prepositional), and one for the dative, depositional and instrumental.

Indo-European numeral *H₁oḱtōu“eight” is a form of the dual case from a stem that has not reached us *H₁oḱtō, Wed in Kartvelian languages: cargo. ოთხი [ otxi], lazsk. otxo"four".

Dual number in Old Russian language

Dual existed in the Old Russian language (as well as in other Slavic languages), but early (XIII century) it began to be replaced by the plural. In the 14th century, the correct use of the forms of the dual number is still common, but nearby there are already various secondary forms, indicating the oblivion of the primary meaning of the original forms of the dual number.

Numeral “two”, g. R. “two” (Old Russian d'va, d've) retained the typical endings of the Old Russian dual number: - a, and -е. These endings, as well as - and were used in almost all cases, except for a very small group of words of the ancient declension for the short - u (see below). In the Proto-Slavic dialect of the Indo-European proto-language, the dual number was formed in some declensions by doubling the vowel of the stem, in others by adding the ending i; according to the phonetic laws of the Proto-Slavic language, long *-ō in the declension with -o turned into *-a (*stolō> stola), the diphthong *-ai in the declension with -a - into ѣ (*genai>zhene), long *-ū - in -y (*sunū>sons), long *-ī - in -i (*noktī>night).

Dual of nouns

In the nominative case:

• The ending -a was used for masculine words of the ancient stem with -o (now I declension): two brothers, table(for the soft type, that is, after a soft consonant - I: two princes),
• Neuter words of the same declension and stem words ending in -a, i.e. The current II declension in the hard type ended in ѣ, in the soft type in -i: dve le te, mori, sister, de vici.
• The remaining declensions had the ending -i: lights, nights, mothers, daughters, stones, seeds, letters.
• The only exceptions were a few words of the ancient stem with a short u, the dual number of which sounded like this: sons, honeys, feasts(for plural: son, honey, pirov); subsequently this form replaced the ancient plural.

When declension of nouns, in the dative and instrumental cases the ending -ma was added, and in the genitive and locative cases - the ending -у (after the soft consonant -yu), firsthand(“in the eyes”), cousin(“two relatives”):

Base on -o (now I declension) I-V-Sv sort, horse, let te, mori R.-M. family, horse, summer, sea D.-T. home, konema, letoma, morema Short base -u I-V.-Sv.: honeys R.-M. Medov D.-Tv. medma Base on -a (now II declension) I-V.-Sv.: sister, will, devitsi R.-M. sister, will, maiden D.-Tv. sister, will, de vitsama Base on -i (now III declension) I-V.-Sv.: nights R.-M. at night(s) D.-Tv. nightma Consonant stem I-V.-Sv. stones, wheels, seeds R.-M. stone, wheel, seed D.-Tv. stone, wheel, sѣ less Basis for the long term -u I-V.-Sv. letters R.-M. letter D.-Tv. letter

Dual number of pronouns

Personal pronouns sounded like this:

• 1st l.: ve
• 2nd sheet: va
• 3rd l.: m.r. - I, female and w.r. - And. Subsequently: m.r. - she, female and w.r. - one (similar to the corresponding demonstrative pronoun).

The feminine and neuter forms of all pronouns in the dual number were the same.

The 1st person pronoun in the accusative case had a form different from the nominative: on.

I-Sv. (personal) ve, va, I, and; (indicative) ta, te; she, he; si, sii
IN. (personal) on -//-
R.-M. (personal) nayu; vayu; ѣ yu, (indicative) that, that, sow
D-TV. (personal) nama; vama; ima, (indicative) that's it, that's it, that's it,

Dual of verbs

Present tense
1st l. not sitting, becoming, knowing, praising
2nd and 3rd pp. carries, becomes, knows, praises

(In Proto-Slavic and Old Church Slavonic, the 3rd person had a special ending, similar to the 2nd plural: you carry, you will become, you know, you praise)

Aorist
1st l. nesokhov, stakhov, znakhov, hlakhov, bykhov
2nd and 3rd pp. nesosta, stasta, znasta, khvalista, fast

(3rd person aorist in Proto-Slavic and Old Church Slavonic: nesost, staste, znaste, khvaliste, fast)

Imperfect
1st l. Nesyakhove, Khvalyahove, Byakhove
2nd and 3rd pp. bragging, boasting, bragging.

(In Old Church Slavonic:

1st l. carry ahove, stahova, know, praise ahove, be ahove
2nd l. carry asheta, staasheta, know, praise asheta, be asheta)
3rd person you say, you know, you know, you praise, you know)

Imperative mood

1st l. carry everything, become everything, know, praise
2nd and 3rd pp. she carries, she becomes, she knows, she praises

Remnants of the dual number in modern Russian language

Currently, in the Russian language there are only a few, few remnants of the dual number. The dual (instead of plural) forms have retained the names of some paired objects: horns, eyes, banks, sleeves, sides, shoulders, knees, ears, eyes, mude. The forms of the quasi-genitive case (in fact, nominative, accusative, vocative dual) for numerals go back to it: two brothers, according to the type of which combinations arise, like two wifes with the genitive case, as well as three, four brothers, forms of indirect cases of the numeral two: two, two, two, Where two- there is a genitive-prepositional dual, complicated by pronoun endings like those, te-m etc.: instrumental forms of numerals two, three, four, where mya = the ancient ending of the dative and instrumental dual number -ma, softened under the influence of the ending of the instrumental plural mi(originally it was two, But three). Numeral twelve(nominative, accusative, feminine vocative), two hundred(instead of two ste, nominative, accusative, vocative neuter). Some adverbs like firsthand(dual pronoun), between(also) etc.

Some proverbs also retain similar forms: A sparrow sits on the meadow, hopes on the wing(accusative dual), etc. In northern Great Russian dialects, the ending of the dative and instrumental dual -ma appears as a plural ending: with foot, with hand, with stick. Similar forms are found in Belarusian and Ukrainian dialects. Also in modern forms of languages, for example, European (example - the English word "both"), and Slavic languages came the dual noun “Both”, “Both” “Both, both”...

Examples of using the dual number

• Two best brothers in spirit. (...) Names but love is great and impersonal among each other.
• The brethren prayed many times by her <"братьев по духу">, come to terms with it ima between themselves
• Former two husbands from the great city of that friend to yourself.

Kiev-Pechersk Patericon

• I'll come to His house, attacker to him blind man, and verb ima Jesus: believes How can I do this? verbatist To him to her. God. Then I'll touch with my own eyes their verb: by faith vayu wake up you. AND I opened my eyes. And forbid ima Jesus saying:

And many other languages. In the vast majority of modern Indo-European languages, the dual number has disappeared, leaving only more or less numerous traces of its existence.

Dual number in the Indo-European proto-language

The historical forms of the Indo-European dual represent only three forms: one for the nominative, accusative and vocative cases, one for the genitive and locative (prepositional), and one for the dative, depositional and instrumental.

see also

Write a review about the article "Dual number"

Notes

Literature

• W. von Humboldt, “Über den Dualis” (Berl., 1828, also Gesamm. Werke, vol. VI);
• Silberstein, “Über d. Dualis in dem indogerm. Sprachstamm" (Jahn's Jahrbücher, Suppl. XV, 1849);
• Fr. Müller, “Der Dual im indogerm. und semit. Sprachgebiet" (B., 1860); Brugmann, “Grundriss d. vergl. Grammatik d. indogerm. Sprachen" (vol. II, 1890), where other literature is indicated.
• V.V. Ivanov. Historical grammar of the Russian language. M., 1983 or according to some sources 1982

Excerpt characterizing the Dual number

The Emperor, with his head down, was silent for some time.
“Eh bien, retournez a l"armee, [Well, then return to the army.],” he said, straightening up to his full height and turning to Michaud with a gentle and majestic gesture, “et dites a nos braves, dites a tous mes bons sujets partout ou vous passerez, que quand je n"aurais plus aucun soldat, je me mettrai moi meme, a la tete de ma chere noblesse, de mes bons paysans et j"userai ainsi jusqu"a la derniere ressource de mon empire. “Il m"en offre encore plus que mes ennemis ne pensent,” said the sovereign, becoming more and more inspired. “Mais si jamais il fut ecrit dans les decrets de la divine providence,” he said, raising his beautiful, gentle and brilliant feelings eyes to the sky, - que ma dinastie dut cesser de rogner sur le trone de mes ancetres, alors, apres avoir epuise tous les moyens qui sont en mon pouvoir, je me laisserai croitre la barbe jusqu"ici (the sovereign pointed his hand to half his chest) , et j"irai manger des pommes de terre avec le dernier de mes paysans plutot, que de signer la honte de ma patrie et de ma chere nation, dont je sais apprecier les sacrifices!.. [Tell our brave men, tell all my subjects , wherever you go, that when I no longer have a single soldier, I myself will become the head of my kind nobles and good men and thus exhaust the last funds of my state. They are more than my enemies think... But if only. It was destined by divine providence that our dynasty should cease to reign on the throne of my ancestors, then, having exhausted all the means in my hands, I will grow a beard until now and would rather go eat one potato with the last of my peasants than dare to sign the shame of my homeland and mine dear people, whose sacrifices I know how to appreciate!..] Having said these words in an excited voice, the sovereign suddenly turned around, as if wanting to hide from Michaud the tears that had come to his eyes, and walked into the depths of his office. After standing there for a few moments, he returned with long steps to Michaud and with a strong gesture squeezed his hand below the elbow. The sovereign’s beautiful, meek face became flushed, and his eyes burned with a gleam of determination and anger.
“Colonel Michaud, n"oubliez pas ce que je vous dis ici; peut etre qu"un jour nous nous le rappellerons avec plaisir... Napoleon ou moi,” said the sovereign, touching his chest. – Nous ne pouvons plus regner ensemble. J "ai appris a le connaitre, il ne me trompera plus... [Colonel Michaud, don’t forget what I told you here; maybe someday we will remember this with pleasure... Napoleon or I... We can no longer reign together. I recognize him now, and he will not deceive me anymore...] - And the sovereign, frowning, fell silent. Hearing these words, seeing the expression of firm determination in the eyes of the sovereign, Michaud - quoique etranger, mais Russe de c?ur et d"ame - felt. himself at this solemn moment - entousiasme par tout ce qu"il venait d"entendre [although a foreigner, but Russian at heart... admiring everything that he heard] (as he said later), and in the following expressions he portrayed himself as his feelings, as well as the feelings of the Russian people, whom he considered himself authorized.
- Sire! - he said. - Votre Majeste signe dans ce moment la gloire de la nation et le salut de l "Europe! [Sovereign! Your Majesty signs at this moment the glory of the people and the salvation of Europe!]
The Emperor bowed his head and released Michaud.

While Russia was half conquered, and the inhabitants of Moscow fled to distant provinces, and militia after militia rose to defend the fatherland, it involuntarily seems to us, who did not live at that time, that all Russian people, young and old, were busy only with to sacrifice oneself, save the fatherland or cry over its destruction. Stories and descriptions of that time, without exception, speak only of self-sacrifice, love of the fatherland, despair, grief and heroism of the Russians. In reality this was not the case. It seems to us that this is so only because we see from the past one common historical interest of that time and do not see all those personal, human interests that the people of that time had. Meanwhile, in reality, those personal interests of the present are so much more significant than general interests that because of them the general interest is never felt (not even noticeable at all). Most people of that time did not pay any attention to the general course of affairs, but were guided only by the personal interests of the present. And these people were the most useful figures of that time.
Those who tried to understand the general course of affairs and wanted to participate in it with self-sacrifice and heroism were the most useless members of society; they saw everything inside out, and everything they did for the benefit turned out to be useless nonsense, like the regiments of Pierre, Mamonov, plundering Russian villages, like lint plucked by the ladies and never reaching the wounded, etc. Even those who, loving to be clever and express their feelings, they talked about the present situation in Russia, involuntarily bearing in their speeches the imprint of either pretense and lies, or useless condemnation and anger at people accused of something for which no one could be guilty. In historical events, the most obvious is the prohibition of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Only one unconscious activity bears fruit, and the person who plays a role in historical event, never understands its meaning. If he tries to understand it, he is struck by its futility.
The significance of the event that was taking place in Russia at that time was all the more unnoticeable, the closer human participation was in it. In St. Petersburg and provincial cities distant from Moscow, ladies and men in militia uniforms mourned Russia and the capital and talked about self-sacrifice, etc.; but in the army that was retreating beyond Moscow, they hardly spoke or thought about Moscow, and, looking at its conflagration, no one swore revenge on the French, but thought about the next third of their salary, about the next stop, about Matryoshka the sutler and the like...
Nikolai Rostov, without any goal of self-sacrifice, but by chance, since the war found him in the service, took a close and long-term part in the defense of the fatherland and therefore, without despair and gloomy conclusions, looked at what was happening in Russia at that time. If they had asked him what he thought about the current situation in Russia, he would have said that he had nothing to think about, that Kutuzov and others were there for that, and that he had heard that the regiments were being recruited, and that they would probably fight for a long time , and that under the current circumstances it would not be surprising for him to receive a regiment in two years.
Because he looked at the matter this way, he not only accepted the news of his appointment on a business trip for repairs for the division in Voronezh without regret that he would be deprived of participation in the last struggle, but also with the greatest pleasure, which he did not hide and which his comrades understood very well.
A few days before the Battle of Borodino, Nikolai received money and papers and, sending the hussars ahead, went to Voronezh by mail.
Only those who have experienced this, that is, have spent several months without ceasing in the atmosphere of military, combat life, can understand the pleasure that Nicholas experienced when he got out of the area that the troops reached with their forages, supplies, and hospitals; when he, without soldiers, wagons, dirty traces of the presence of the camp, saw villages with men and women, landowners' houses, fields with grazing cattle, station houses with fallen asleep caretakers. He felt such joy as if he had seen it all for the first time. In particular, what surprised and pleased him for a long time were women, young, healthy, each of whom had less than a dozen officers looking after her, and women who were glad and flattered that a passing officer was joking with them.
In the most cheerful mood, Nikolai arrived at the hotel in Voronezh at night, ordered himself everything that he had been deprived of for a long time in the army, and the next day, having shaved clean and putting on a dress uniform that had not been worn for a long time, he went to report to his superiors.
The head of the militia was a civil general, an old man, who apparently was amused by his military rank and rank. He angrily (thinking that this was a military quality) received Nicholas and significantly, as if having the right to do so and as if discussing the general course of the matter, approving and disapproving, questioned him. Nikolai was so cheerful that it was just funny to him.
From the chief of the militia he went to the governor. The governor was a small, lively man, very affectionate and simple. He pointed out to Nikolai those factories where he could get horses, recommended to him a horse dealer in the city and a landowner twenty miles from the city who had the best horses, and promised all assistance.
– Are you Count Ilya Andreevich’s son? My wife was very friendly with your mother. On Thursdays they gather at my place; “Today is Thursday, you are welcome to come to me easily,” said the governor, dismissing him.
Directly from the governor, Nikolai took the saddlebag and, taking the sergeant with him, rode twenty miles to the landowner’s factory. Everything during this first time of his stay in Voronezh was fun and easy for Nikolai, and everything, as happens when a person is well disposed, everything went well and went smoothly.
The landowner to whom Nikolai came was an old bachelor cavalryman, a horse expert, a hunter, the owner of a carpet, a hundred-year-old casserole, an old Hungarian and wonderful horses.
Nikolai, in two words, bought for six thousand and seventeen stallions for selection (as he said) for the horse-drawn end of his renovation. Having had lunch and drunk a little extra Hungarian, Rostov, having kissed the landowner, with whom he had already gotten on first name terms, along the disgusting road, in the most cheerful mood, galloped back, constantly chasing the coachman, in order to be in time for the evening with the governor.
Having changed clothes, perfumed himself and doused his head with cold milk, Nikolai, although somewhat late, but with a ready-made phrase: vaut mieux tard que jamais, [better late than never] came to the governor.
It was not a ball, and it was not said that there would be dancing; but everyone knew that Katerina Petrovna would play waltzes and ecosaises on the clavichord and that they would dance, and everyone, counting on this, gathered at the ballroom.
Provincial life in 1812 was exactly the same as always, with the only difference that the city was livelier on the occasion of the arrival of many wealthy families from Moscow and that, as in everything that happened at that time in Russia, it was noticeable some kind of special sweepingness - the sea is knee-deep, the grass is dry in life, and even in the fact that that vulgar conversation that is necessary between people and which was previously conducted about the weather and about mutual acquaintances, was now conducted about Moscow, about the army and Napoleon.
The society gathered from the governor was the best society in Voronezh.
There were a lot of ladies, there were several of Nikolai’s Moscow acquaintances; but there were no men who could in any way compete with the Cavalier of St. George, the repairman hussar, and at the same time the good-natured and well-mannered Count Rostov. Among the men was one captured Italian - an officer of the French army, and Nikolai felt that the presence of this prisoner further elevated the importance of him - the Russian hero. It was like a trophy. Nikolai felt this, and it seemed to him that everyone was looking at the Italian in the same way, and Nikolai treated this officer with dignity and restraint.

In languages ​​that have dual forms, we find two varieties of this concept. One variety is represented by Greenlandic, in which the word nuna "earth" has the dual form nunak and the plural form nunat; here “the form of the dual number is used mainly in cases where the speaker wants to especially emphasize that we are talking about two objects; if, on the other hand, duality is self-evident, as with parts of the body that exist in pairs, then the plural form is almost always used. Thus, it is customary to say issai “his eyes,” siutai “his ears,” talk “his hands,” etc., rather than issik, siutik, tatdlik “his two eyes,” etc. The plural form is often it is even used with the numeral mardluk “two,” which itself is a form of a dual number, for example inuit mardluk “two people”” (Kleinschmidt, Grammatik der grönländischen Sprache, 13).

Another variety is represented by the Indo-European languages. The dual form is used here for objects that occur in pairs. The dual number existed in many ancient languages ​​of this family; over time, the forms of the dual number gradually disappeared, and now they are preserved only in certain dialects (Lithuanian, Lusatian, Slovenian, as well as in personal pronouns in some Bavarian dialects). In the process of gradual disappearance of dual forms from Indo-European languages, there are many interesting phenomena, which we cannot consider in detail here. The existence of a dual number is usually considered (Lévy-Bruhl, Meillet) as an indicator of primitive thinking, and its disappearance as an indicator of the progress of civilization. In my own opinion, any simplification, any elimination of former unnecessary differences, is progressive, although the causal connection between civilization as a whole and particular grammatical changes cannot be shown in detail.

IN Greek the dual number was lost early in the colonies, where the level of civilization was relatively higher, but was very firmly preserved in continental Greece, for example in Lacedaemon, Boeotia and Attica. In Homer, the forms of the dual number occur quite often, but they are apparently an artificial archaism, which is used for poetic purposes (especially for meter); however, to designate two persons, plural forms are often used in close proximity to forms of the dual number (cf. combinations like amphō kheiras - Od., 8. 135). In Gothic, dual forms exist only for 1st and 2nd person pronouns and corresponding verb forms; however, the dual forms of verbs are few.

In other ancient Germanic languages, the dual number is retained only in the pronouns “we” and “you,” but later it disappears in them too. (On the contrary, the dual forms vir, yuir have replaced the previous plural forms vйr, yuyr in modern Icelandic, and perhaps also in Danish - vi, I). Isolated traces of the former dual number have been found in the forms of several nouns, such as door (originally two doors) and breast, but even here these forms have long been understood not as dual forms, but as singular forms. . Now the dual number can be seen only in two words - two “two” and both “both”; however, it should be noted that when both is used as a “conjunction,” it is often applied to more than just two subjects, for example, both London, Paris, and Amsterdam; although some grammarians rebel against this usage, it is found in a number of good writers.

According to Gotio, the forms of the dual number Skr. akī, gr. osse, lit. akm, in fact, do not mean “two eyes,” or even “an eye and another eye,” but mean “an eye because it is represented by two”; thus, mitrā is “Mithra represented by two,” i.e. Mithra and Varuna, for Varuna is the double of Mithra. We find the same thing in Skr. bhanī “day and (night)”, pitbrāu “father and (mother)”, mātbrāu “mother and (father)”; then also pitБrāu mātБrāu “father and mother” (both in the form of a dual number); somewhat excellent gr. Aiante Teukron te “Ayanta (dual number) and Tevkra.” In the Finno-Ugric languages ​​there are parallels to most of these constructions; Thus, in combinations such as īmeхen igeхen “old man and old woman”, teteхen tuхgen “winter and summer”, both words have a plural form.

In some cases, traces of the lost dual number have been preserved, but their true character is no longer felt. So, for example, in Old Icelandic the pronoun уau “they are two” is an old form of the dual. At the same time, it is also a neuter plural form. In this regard, a syntactic rule arises according to which the neuter plural form is also used when we are talking about both male and female persons.

In the Russian language, the old forms of the dual number in some words coincided with the forms of the genitive singular case. h.; as a result, cases like two men led to the use of the genitive singular from other words; It is curious that this use, after the concept of the dual number disappeared, extended to the words three and four: four years, etc.

Question 6. Specificity of the category of hardness-softness of consonants, the quality of semi-softness as a positional phenomenon. Lack of neutralization and correlation of paired phonemes.

Question 7. Specificity of the deaf-voiced category: lack of neutralization for paired deaf-voiced consonant phonemes.

Question 8. The oldest dialect differences.

Question 9. Secondary softening of consonants and the results of this process.

Question 10. The process of the fall of the reduced in the Old Russian language: definition of this phenomenon, chronological framework, reasons, positions of the reduced.

Question 11. Consequences of the fall of reduced ones in the structure of the syllable.

Question 12. Consequences of the fall of reduced ones in the vowel area.

Question 14. Consequences of the fall of reduced ones in the area of ​​consonants.

Question 15. The influence of the results of the reduction of the reduced on the morphological structure of the Russian language and its lexical composition.

Question 16. History of reduced in combination with smooth.

Question 17. History of the phoneme “o closed” in the Russian language.

Question 18. History of the sound denoted by the letter “yat” (ě).

Question 20. History of Akanya. Basic scientific hypotheses about the time, place and causes of the appearance of acanya.

Question 22. Softening of back-lingual consonants.

Question 23. Unification of types of declension in the Old Russian language.

Question 24. Destruction of the category of dual number, its traces in modern Russian.

Question 25 (seriously). Destruction of paradigms of unproductive types of declension (on a consonant, on ŭ, on ū).

Question 25 (with humor).

Destroying paradigms of unproductive types of declension

(On a consonant, on ŭ, on ū).

Revolution in the country of ancient Russian nouns

Question 26. The origin of modern inflections of the nominative and genitive cases of plural nouns.

Question 27. Formation of the category of animation - inanimateness.

Question 28. History of personal and reflexive pronouns.

Question 29. Reorganization of the system of demonstrative pronouns.

Question 30. History of short adjectives.

Question 31. Full adjectives: meaning, formation, history of case endings.

Question 32. History of the comparative degree of adjectives.

Question 33. Formation of a numeral as a part of speech.

Question 34. Verb classes.

Question 35. History of the imperfect in spoken language and book and written tradition.

Question 36. History of the aorist in spoken language and book and written tradition, traces of the aorist in modern Russian.

Question 37. History of the plusquaperfect, the formation of a new form of the plusquaperfect with the perfect form of the auxiliary verb to be, traces of the plusquaperfect in modern dialects and literary language.

Question 38. Perfect, the process and result of the formation of the modern form of the past tense from it.

Question 39. History of the present time.

Question 40. History of the future tense.

Question 41. The imperative mood and its history.

Question 42. Subjunctive mood and its history.

Question 43. Formation of the species category.

Read - read, cook - cook

Question 44. Church Slavonic origin of modern active participles of the present tense.

Question 45. Origin of gerunds of the perfect and imperfect form.

Question 46. Origin and history of infinitive forms.

Question 47. Origin and fate of supin.

Question 48. Dative independent in the book tradition.

Question 24. Destruction of the category of dual number, its traces in modern Russian.

The loss of the dual number and the development of the opposition between only the singular and the plural is the result of the development of human thinking from the idea of ​​a concrete plurality to an abstract one. If there is, say, only one. In the case of plural and dual numbers, the speaker contrasts one object with two objects, and two objects with a plurality of them, then in such opposition, of course, to a certain extent the ideas of concrete plurality are still preserved (that is, “one” is not the same as “two”, and especially not “a lot”). If a language has only singular and plural numbers, then, consequently, the speaker contrasts one object with any other collection of objects, be there two, a hundred, a thousand, etc. (that is, in this case, “one” is not the same as “many”, not the same as “not one”). This is abstract, not concrete, multiplicity.

The loss of the dual number in the Old Russian language is reflected in the monuments from the 13th century, and this is expressed in the replacement of dual forms with plural forms. As one might assume, the forms of oblique cases were lost more quickly, while the form of the nominative case was still preserved. This is also explained by the fact that in the oblique cases there was no difference between those forms that differed in the plural (that is, the forms of the genitive and local, as well as the dative and instrumental cases of the dual number were the same). The desire to distinguish between these forms led to the need to use plural forms.

The final loss of the dual number is a relatively late phenomenon: it is assumed that this refers to the era after the formation of the three East Slavic languages, that is, to the era 14th – 15th centuries.

Remains of the dual number in modern Russian:

The names of paired body parts are knees, eyes, ears, shoulders (the original form is knees, shoulders, ears, feathers), as well as paired objects - banks, sleeves, millstones (the original form is birches, millstones, sleeves);

Combinations such as “two hours”, which retain the original emphasis on inflection for the dual number; The emphasis on the base is typical for genitive singular forms. Compare: “from the first hour”, “until the last hour”, but “two hours”.

Numeral “Two hundred”: originally – ДЪВѢ СъТѢ;

Adverb “with your own eyes”: primordial - locative case of the dual number “IN YOUR EYES”.

Question 25 (seriously). Destruction of paradigms of unproductive types of declension (on a consonant, on ŭ, on ū).

Loss of declension with the ancient stem on *ŭ.

The declension with a stem on *ŭ early interacted with the hard variety of the declension with a stem on *ŏ. Initially, the process of bringing these two declinations closer together was of the nature of interaction and mutual influence. However, the processes of mutual influence could not end in anything other than the establishment of a single type of declination, that is, the loss of one of the two interacting declinations. This single type of declension was a type that goes back to the former bases on *ŏ, as more productive and stable. Thus, a special type of declension with the former base on *ŭ disappeared and ceased to exist in the Russian language.

The fate of the declension with the ancient stem on *ū.

Its history was connected primarily with the loss of the old form of the nominative case, replaced by the original accusative case, which had the ending - БББ. A number of words of this group, having received the form in the nominative case in - ЪВь, such as KR'V', LYUB'', MYRK'', SVEK'', TTS'', coincided with words like BONE and began to change in declension with the ancient stem to *ĭ. However, other words of this type, in addition to the fact that they have lost the old form of the nominative case, also came under the influence of the declension of feminine nouns with an ancient stem on *ā (such as SISTER, ZEMLѦ) and therefore received the ending [ЪВА] in the nominative case: BOOKYA, PUMPKIN. Due to all these processes, these words coincided with nouns like SISTER and passed into declension with the ancient stem in *ā. Thus, the declension with the stem on *ū was completely lost in the Old Russian language, and essentially no traces of it have been preserved.

Destruction of the declension of nouns with an ancient consonant stem.

History of masculine nouns with an ancient stem on *n began with the fact that the old form of the nominative singular case KAMA, RHEMA was supplanted by the accusative singular form STONE, BELT. After the establishment of the form in –EN in the nominative case, these words, like the word DN, coincided in their phonetic appearance and morphological structure with masculine words with a former base in *ĭ (such as FIRE, PERSTEN) and began to decline according to this type; and when masculine words with a stem in *ĭ passed into stems in *jŏ, along with them the words STONE, BELT, DAY also passed there.

In the same way, words of the neuter gender with an ancient stem could not be preserved in this type on *s, the nominative singular case of which coincided with the form of the nominative singular case of neuter words with a base on *ŏ, such as SELO, VESLO. In this regard, the convergence and transition of the nouns “WORD”, “SKY”, “BODY”, “MIRACLE”, etc. stems on *ŏ began very early, at least earlier than the destruction of declensions on other consonants. In general, as can be seen, the forms of indirect cases from words of this type with the suffix [-es-] were not characteristic of the living Russian language, but belonged only to written book speech, in the development of which the Old Church Slavonic language played a large role. It is not accidental that the derivatives of words with an ancient base in *s, characteristic of a living language, are formed from the forms of these words without the suffix -es- (cf., for example, “proverb”, “literal” from “word”, “little body”, “body” from “body”, “eccentric”, “wonderful” from “miracle”) and, conversely, derivatives from forms with the suffix -es- are clearly bookish in nature (for example, “verbal”, “literature”, “bodily”, “wonderful”, “heavenly”, etc.) In a somewhat special position here are the derivatives of “colo” - a wheel, where, on the one hand, there is “nonsense”, and on the other - “outskirts”, "roundabout". However, the fate of the word “kolo” turned out to be completely different from the fate of the other words in this group. This is due to the fact that if all words with an ancient base on *s have lost the singular suffix -es- in indirect cases according to the model of names. pad., then in the word “kolo”, on the contrary, this suffix also appeared in names. pad. on the model of indirect ones. As you can see, this circumstance created the opportunity for the emergence of derivatives from “kolo” with the suffix -es- in the living Russian language. However, in both cases, neuter words with an ancient stem on *s came under the influence of stems on *ŏ of the solid variety (such as “village”, “oar”) and received case forms based on the model of this latter declension. As for the plural, here too the fate of words of this type turned out to be not entirely the same, for some of them retained the suffix -es-, for example “heaven”, “miracles” (not to mention, of course, the word “wheels”), while others lost it in the same way as in the singular, for example “words”, “bodies”. In general, this group of words has gone from a special declension with a consonant stem to a productive type with *ŏ.

The history of neuter words with the stem turned out to be peculiar to *t, which included the names of young animals.

The uniqueness of their history lay in the fact that they all received names. pad. units including suffix -enok: calf, kid, donkey, lamb, foal, child, etc. instead of other Russian. telѧ, goatlѧ, oslѧ, zherebѧ, etc. This fact determined the subsequent development of this group of words: having acquired the suffix -onok in the nominative case of the singular, they became masculine words and moved into declension with the base on *ŏ. However, this happened only in the singular; in the plural, these words, retaining the previous suffix -at- (cf. calves, kids, lambs, etc.), generally retained their old declension. on *n Finally, neuter words on *, such as imѧ, veremѧ, sѣmѧ, etc., and feminine words, r

i.e. mati, d'chi, in the singular also lost their previous case forms in declension with a base on a consonant. However, these words have retained their originality in that in indirect cases in the modern Russian language they have the so-called “accretion”, which is in origin a remnant of the former word-forming suffix *-men or *-ter. So, if in the other Russian form name pad. SѢМѦ) the suffix was not preserved due to the law of the open syllable, then in the gen. pad. d'achi" and indirect, say, gender "mother", "daughter". Such relationships are preserved in modern ones: name, seed - name, seed, mother, daughter (the absence of the final [and] is the result of a complete reduction of the vowel) - mothers, daughters, etc. However, only this limits the originality of the declension of these two groups of words, since at the end of the case forms they are completely adjacent to the declension with the ancient stem in *ĭ.

ABOUT DUAL

Everyone knows that in language there is a singular number and there is a plural number. But has there always been such a division, and are other options possible, for example, in other languages? No, it wasn’t always like this, and yes, they are possible.

Dual number (lat. dualis) is a form of declension and conjugation, used to designate two objects, either paired by nature (parts of the body, etc.) or by custom. Currently, the category of dual number exists in Semitic languages ​​(for example, in Arabic), in three Slavic languages ​​(Slovenian and a pair of Lusatian languages), in some dialects Ukrainian language

The category of dual number existed in the ancient languages ​​of the Indo-European family and many other languages. In the vast majority of modern Indo-European languages, the dual number has disappeared, leaving only more or less numerous traces of its existence.

Dual number in the Indo-European proto-language

The historical forms of the Indo-European dual represent only three forms: one for the nominative, accusative and vocative cases, one for the genitive and locative (prepositional), and one for the dative, depositional and instrumental.

However, in the Avestan language there is a difference in the forms of the genitive and locative dual. This, as well as the presence in certain Indo-European languages ​​of two types of endings for the dative and instrumental dual, suggests that in the Indo-European proto-language the forms of the genitive and locative, as well as the dative and instrumental, differed from each other and only coincided in certain languages. Moreover, the difference between genitive and local has been preserved in the Zende language, and various forms of dative and instrumental have been distributed across different individual languages ​​(see “ Dative"). These assumptions have only a certain degree of probability and cannot be proven.

The Indo-European numeral *H₁oḱtōu “eight” is a form of the dual number from the extant stem *H₁oḱtō, cf. in Kartvelian languages: cargo. ოთხი, Lazsk. otxo "four".

Dual number in Old Russian language

The dual number existed in the Old Russian language (as well as in other Slavic languages), but early (13th century) it began to be replaced by the plural. In the 14th century, the correct use of the forms of the dual number is still common, but nearby there are already various secondary forms, indicating the oblivion of the primary meaning of the original forms of the dual number.

Numeral “two”, g. R. “two” (Old Russian dva, dve) retained the typical endings of the Old Russian dual number: - a, and -е. These endings, as well as -i, were used in almost all cases, except for a very small group of words of the ancient declension with short -u (see below). In the Proto-Slavic dialect of the Indo-European proto-language, the dual number was formed in some cases by lengthening the stem vowel, in others by adding the ending i; according to the phonetic laws of the Proto-Slavic language, the long *-ō in the declension with -o turned into *-a (*stolō > table), the diphthong *-ai in the declension with -a, as well as the diphthong * -oi in words with the neuter declension with * - o - in ѣ ( Gennady Ivanov> wife), long *-ū - in -ы (*sūnū > sons), long *-ī - in -i (*noktī > nights).

Dual of nouns

The ending -a was used for masculine words of the ancient stem in -o (now I declension): two brothers, tables (for the soft type, that is, after a soft consonant - I: two princes),
Neuter words of the same declension and stem words ending in -a, that is, the current II declension, in the hard type ended in ѣ, in the soft type in -i: dve lete, mori, sister, devitsi.
The remaining declensions had the ending -i: lights, nights, mothers, daughters, stones, seeds, letters.
The only exceptions were a few words of the ancient stem with a short u, the dual number of which sounded like this: sons, honeys, pirs (with the plural: sonov, honey, pirov); subsequently this form replaced the ancient plural.
When declension of nouns, in the dative and instrumental cases the ending -ma was added, and in the genitive and locative cases - the ending -у (after the soft consonant -yu), vochich (“in the eyes”), cousin (“two relatives”):

Base on -o (now I declension)
I-V-Zv kind, horse, fly, sea
R.-M. family, horse, flight, sea
D.-T. home, horse, summer, sea

Short stem -u
I-V.-Sv. honeys
R.-M. Medov
D.-Tv. honey

Base on -a (now II declension)
I-V.-Sv. sister, will, maiden
R.-M. sister, will, maiden
D.-Tv. sister, will, maiden

Base on -i (now III declension)
I-V.-Sv. nights
R.-M. at night(s)
D.-Tv. at night

Consonant stem
I-V.-Sv. stones, wheels, seeds
R.-M. stone, wheel, seed
D.-Tv.stones, wheels, seeds

Long base -u
I-V.-Sv. letters
R.-M. letter
D.-Tv.letter

Dual number of pronouns

Personal pronouns sounded like this:

1st page: вѣ
2nd letter: va
3rd letter: m.r. — I, female and w.r. - And. Subsequently: zh.r. - she, m.r. and w.r. - one (similar to the corresponding demonstrative pronoun).
The feminine and neuter forms of all pronouns in the dual number were the same.

The 1st person pronoun in the accusative case had a form different from the nominative: on.

I-Sv. (personal) ve, va, I, and; (indicative) ta, te; she, he; si, sii
V. (personal) on -//-
R.-M. (personal) nayu; vayu; her, (indicative) that, her, sow
D-TV. (personal) nama; vama; ima, (indicative) theme, onema, sema,

Dual of verbs

Present tense
1st l. not sitting, becoming, knowing, praising
2nd and 3rd pp. carries, becomes, knows, praises

(In Proto-Slavic and Old Church Slavonic, the 3rd person had a special ending, similar to the 2nd plural: you carry, you will become, you know, you praise)

Aorist
1st l. nesokhov, stakhov, znakhov, hlakhov, bykhov
2nd and 3rd pp. nesosta, stasta, znasta, khvalista, fast

(3rd person aorist in Proto-Slavic and Old Church Slavonic: nesost, staste, znaste, khvaliste, fast)

Imperfect
1st l. nesyakhov, khlagakhov, byakhov
2nd and 3rd pp. bragging, boasting, bragging.

(In Old Church Slavonic:

1st l. nesyakhov, stakhov, znaakhov, khvalyakhov, beakhov
2nd l. nesyasheta, staasheta, znaasheta, praise, beasheta)
3rd person you don’t sit, you know, you know, you praise, you beat)

Imperative mood

1st l. not now, becoming, knowing, praising
2nd and 3rd pp. carries, becomes, knows, praises

Remnants of the dual number in modern Russian language

Currently, in the Russian language there are only a few, few remnants of the dual number. The dual (instead of plural) forms have retained the names of some paired objects: horns, eyes, shores, sleeves, sides, shoulders, knees, ears, eyes, etc.

The forms of the quasi-genitive case (actually nominative-accusative-vocative dual) with numerals go back to it: two brothers, according to the type of which combinations arise, like two wives with the genitive case, as well as three, four brothers, forms of indirect cases numeral two: two, two, two, where two is the genitive-prepositional dual number, complicated by endings of pronouns like those, those, etc.: the instrumental forms of the numerals two, three , four, where me= the ancient ending of the dative and instrumental dual number -ma, softened under the influence of the ending of the instrumental plural mi (originally there were two, but three). The numeral is twelve (nominative, accusative, feminine vocative), two hundred (instead of two hundred, nominative, accusative, neuter vocative).

Some adverbs like personally (dual pronoun), between (also), etc.

In some proverbs, similar forms are also preserved: a sparrow sits on a tine, hopes on a wing (accusative dual number), etc. In northern Great Russian dialects, the ending of the dative and instrumental dual number -ma appears as a plural ending: s nogama, s rukama, s palkama. Similar forms are found in the Belarusian and Ukrainian languages. Also, Russian numerals came into modern Indo-European languages ​​from the dual forms. “both”, “both”, “both, both”, Polish. "both", English "both" etc.

Word between is by origin the locative case of the dual number of the Old Slavonic noun mezhda (Russian mezha).

Examples of using the dual number

The wild horse has tied his hand
Tura threw 2 me (...) and 2 moose, one trampled with their feet, and the other horned.
Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh

Two suns are darkened, both crimson pillars are extinguished, and are plunging into the sea, and with them the new moon, Oleg and Svyatoslav, are covered in darkness.
You, buoy Rurich, and Davyde! Do I not walk with golden helmets on the blood of the swimmer?
A Word about Igor's Campaign

Two brothers of the best in spirit. (...) There is great and unfeigned love among one another.
Many times the brethren prayed with it<"братьев по духу">, let's reconcile ourselves between ourselves
There were two former husbands from the great city of that one, a friend to himself.
Kiev-Pechersk Patericon

And the besta is both naked, Adam and his wife, and they are not ashamed
Book of Genesis, ch. 2, art. 25.

I came to His house, and a blind man came to Him, and Jesus said, “Do you believe that I can do this?” say to Him: to her. God. Then I will touch their eyes with the verb: “Awake you according to my faith.” And his eyes were opened. And Jesus forbade him, saying: Watch out, and let no one know. She went out and glorified Him throughout all that land.
Gospel of Matthew, chapter 9, v. 28-32

Philosophical content of the category of dual number

Wilhelm von Humboldt considered the idea of ​​the dual number as being limited simply to the concept of the number “two” to be erroneous. According to his idea, the dual number combines the nature of the plural and singular numbers: it is at the same time the collective singular of the number “two,” while the plural can reduce plurality to unity only in certain cases. Thus, the dual number expresses the collectively singular function, the idea of ​​“unity in plurality.”

According to Humboldt, expressed in one of his latest works, unfinished “Über den Dualis”, the dual number is incorrectly considered a luxury or an outdated growth on the body of the tongue. From a philosophical point of view, the dual number fits well into the general proportionality of speech formation, multiplying the possible relationships of words, increasing the scope of the impact of language and contributing to the philosophical foundations of acuteness and brevity of mutual understanding. In this it has the advantage that any grammatical form has, which differs from the corresponding descriptive expression in its brevity and vividness of impact.