Universal #1137
Legacy number: 1137
| Number | 1133 |
| Original | If only two persons differentiate a dual, the 1st is much likelier to be one of them than the 3rd. |
| Standardized | IF only two persons differentiate a dual, THEN the 1st is much likelier to be one of them than the 3rd. |
| 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 | lank 1989: 305 |
Discussion
Counterexamples
Ancient Greek (Indo-European), Classical Arabic (Afro-Asiatic) and Aleut (Eskimo-Aleut) (mentioned in Plank 1989: 303).Counterexamples should be: dual in 2nd and 3rd persons only.
Notes
1. Cf. ##1135, 1136.2. 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.