# Dual constructions in Hebrew



## Smirna

Does Hebrew have singule, double and plural constructions or simply singlular and plural as in English?


----------



## yuval9

I'm not sure i understood your question.
Nouns can be plural or singular.
no dual form, except very few nouns, such as: hours,days,weeks,years... (and some other nouns that don't come in my mind at the moment)

usually when you change a verb from singular to plural you put ים (IM) or ות (OT) in the end of it.
there are some irregular nouns that you put יים (A'IM).
 for example: legs, hands, shoes, socks, eyes, glasses, boots
the common to all these irregular nouns is that they usually come in dual.

In conclusion, only plural and singular in hebrew


----------



## k8an

Smirna said:


> Does Hebrew have singule, double and plural constructions or simply singlular and plural as in English?



Hebrew usually simply uses the plural, but there are cases where the dual is used. These usually relate to things that come in pairs or time values. The plural of Hebrew is given my the suffix ים– (im) for masculine and ות– (ot) for feminine. In the dual form, it is given as a יים- (ayim) form) for masculine, and for feminine it is usually the same with the addition of ת– תיים- (tayim). There are sometimes some other slight modifications of verb sounds in the root of the word.

For example:

Singular/Dual/Pural (in opposite order - Hebrew is written from right-left)

שעה/שעתיים/שעות - Hour/two hours/hours
יום/יומיים/ימים - Day/two days/days
שבוע/שבועיים/שבועות - Week/two weeks/weeks
חודש/חודשיים/חודשים - Month/two months/months
שנה/שנתיים/שנים - Year/two years/years


Other objects include "sky", etc and body parts such as eyes and ears.


----------



## Abu Rashid

yuval9 said:
			
		

> there are some irregular nouns that you put יים (A'IM).
> for example: legs, hands, shoes, socks, eyes, glasses, boots
> the common to all these irregular nouns is that they usually come in dual.



They are not irregular plurals that _is_ the dual ending.


----------



## ks20495

> They are not irregular plurals that _is_ the dual ending.



They are plurals that take the dual ending. 

For example: 
עיניים means eyes, not two eyes. 
אזניים means ears, not two ears.


----------



## GinBoxer

ks20495 said:


> They are plurals that take the dual ending.
> 
> For example:
> עיניים means eyes, not two eyes.
> אזניים means ears, not two ears.




To clarify/elaborate– those particular nouns that take the dual ending for the plural retain a true plural meaning.  An example from Wikipedia:

לכלב יש ארבע רגליים.
_L'kelev yesh arba raglayim_
The dog has four legs.

ארבע רגליים-- despite taking the archaic "dual" ending.


----------



## Abu Rashid

ks20945 said:
			
		

> They are plurals that take the dual ending.



I think it's more a case of them having been frozen in this form, and the dual has since become archaic. So even though they are today used for the plural, it is actually a dual form that's been frozen as the only known non-singular suffix for the word.

To say they are plurals that take the dual ending makes no real sense.


----------



## origumi

Abu Rashid said:


> I think it's more a case of them having been frozen in this form, and the dual has since become archaic. So even though they are today used for the plural, it is actually a dual form that's been frozen as the only known non-singular suffix for the word.
> 
> To say they are plurals that take the dual ending makes no real sense.


The fact the a form has history does not make its present-time description senseless. Doesn't every "exceptional" form have such story? In modern Hebrew the plural of many words, usually those that come in pairs by nature, is the grammatical dual form. Some words have both plural and dual forms (both used as plural) - e.g. רגליים and רגלים, some are plural by nature and yet get dual suffix by influence of similar concepts - e.g. מעיים, שיניים. For some the dual is real dual, not plural - e.g. שבועיים. There are words that maintained the dual notion stronger than the other. But that's history.


----------



## Abu Rashid

So what we can say then is that they are dual forms, but the language has lost it's ability to properly distinguish them from plural forms.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> So what we can say then is that they are dual forms, but the language has lost it's ability to properly distinguish them from plural forms.


Rather that the grammatical category "dual" has ceased to exist. The plural forms of certain words is taken from a historical dual form but they are properly plurals today:
- Attributive adjectives appear in plural, i.e. there is no such thing as a dual agreement rule.
- Plurals in _-ayim_ are applied to groups of more then two objects. E.g. in Leviticus 11.23 you find _four legs_ as אַרְבַּע רַגְלָיִם and not as אַרְבַּע *רְגָלִים. (The plural form רְגָלִים exists too but as the plural of a homonym word רֶגֶל meaning _instance, occurrence_).


----------

