Universal #1136
Legacy number: 1136
| Number | 1132 |
| Original | If only one person differentiates a dual, it will very likely be the 1st rather than the 2nd or 3rd. |
| Standardized | IF only one person differentiates a dual, THEN it will be the 1st person. |
| Keywords | number, dual, pronoun, person, 1, 2, 3 |
| Domain | inflection |
| Type | no genuine implication; rather: provided that |
| Status | achronic |
| Quality | absolute |
| Basis | languages surveyed in Plank 1989 |
| Source | Plank 1989: 305 |
Discussion
Counterexamples
Languages with only a 2nd person dual: Dizi (W. Omotic, Afro-Asiatic), independent pronouns and prefixal possessives have dual only in 2nd person (mentioned in Plank 1989: 303-4, but see caveat in Counterexamples to #567).Languages with only a 3rd person dual: Tunica (isolate possibly remotely related to Algonquian), in which it only occurs in the masculine, and Old Akkadian (Semitic, Afro-Asiatic) in which it is only present in the verb subject inflection (mentioned in Greenberg 1988: 1).South Arabian (Afro-Asiatic), in which dual with nouns and verb agreement is restricted to 3rd person.Hupa (Athabaskan), where the indirect way of expressing duality, by means of simultaneously marking verbs as plural and non-plural, is restricted to 3rd person subjects (mentioned in Plank 1989: 303-4).
Notes
1. Cf. #1137. 2. Cf. Greenberg’s statement (#1409): The existence of a 2nd person dual pronoun seems to always imply that of a 1st person dual, whether with or without the inclusive-exclusive distinction, and/or a 3rd person dual.
Log in to join the discussion.
2. Cf. Greenberg's statement (<a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=1409"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0">): The existence of a 2nd person dual pronoun seems to always imply that of a 1st person dual, whether with or without the inclusive-exclusive distinction, and/or a 3rd person dual.