Universal #716
Legacy number: 716
| Number | 713 |
| Original | If there is any grammatical opposition in the forms of Dual, then there is the same opposition in the forms of Plural. |
| Standardized | IF any further grammatical oppositions are expressed in forms marked for dual number, THEN the same oppositions will also be expressed in forms marked for plural number. |
| Formula | grammatical opposition (Du) ⇒ grammatical opposition (Pl) |
| Keywords | number, dual, plural, inclusive, exclusive, gender, case |
| Domain | inflection |
| Type | implication |
| Status | achronic but presumably diachronically motivated |
| Quality | absolute |
| Basis | unspecified |
| Source | Uspensky 1968: 9 [1972: 61] |
Discussion
Counterexamples
1. Inclusive/exclusive opposition in Dual but not in Plural:Coos (Coosan), Lhota (Baric, Sino-Tibetan) (Sokolovskaja 1980: 98);Nomad (Trans-New Guinea) (Voorhoeve 1975: 392, Franklin 1973); Tübatulabal (Uto-Aztecan) (Voegelin 1935: 135, but see also the caveat in Counterexamples to #578); Wik-Munkan (Pama-Nyungan) (Godfrey 1964: 76). Possibly Guató (Macro-Ge) (Pimentel Palácio 1986) <WS>2. Gender distinction in Dual but not in Plural:In Rotokas (W. Bougainville, East Papuan) (Firchow, Firchow, & Akoitai 1973) 2nd person possessive pronouns, and both 2nd and 3rd person subject markers in verbs distinguish masculine and feminine forms in the dual but not in their plural counterparts. Other persons and other kinds of pronoun, however, have the same gender contrasts in both numbers. <WS>
Notes
1. Cf. #276.2. Cf. a more specific statement by Sokolovskaja, #1490.3. Case distinctions in Dual but not in Plural do not seem to be attested. <WS>
Log in to join the discussion.
2. Cf. a more specific statement by Sokolovskaja, <a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=1490"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0">.
3. Case distinctions in Dual but not in Plural do not seem to be attested. <WS>