# [Polish] Dual Number



## Roy776

Hello everyone,

I hope, this is the right forum to post it, but as it is obsolete today, I think it belongs to the language's history.
I've read several times about the *polish dual number*, which (for those of you, who don't know) refers to two things, while the plural originally refered to more than two things. In this proverb, for example, "_*Mądrej głowie dość dwie słowie*_", the dual number is used instead of the plural.
This dual number existed for "my" (we), "wy" (you, pl.) as well as verbs, adjectives (I believe) and nouns.

I am highly interested in seeing conjugation of verbs, and declension of nouns in the polish dual number. I've already searched through the internet, to the best of my abilites, but I haven't been able to find something like a conjugation/declension table.

My reason for this is, that I'm currently trying to learn Polish in private, I'm highly interested in any kind of languages, and often also in its history. This is now the case with polish. Even for smaller languages like Irish, I was able to find old declensions, old conjugations, but for polish; nothing.

So, I know this may be too much to ask, but maybe there's a native speaker here, or somebody who studied polish, who could give more than just proverb and one word examples of the dual. I'd really like to be able to use it (if it were necessary, and possible).

And in the end, to give some more examples:

*Oczyma* - With eyes (plural: *oczami*)
*Rękoma* - With hands (plural: *rękami*)
*Ręku* - In hands (plural: *rękach*)

I'd really appreciate any information you can give to me!

Thank you all in advance!


----------



## artion

Interesting. The dual number existed also in ancient Greek. I am glad it is now forgotten as it would make the Gr. grammar even more complicated.


----------



## Roy776

Yeah, as said, I find it quite interesting myself. And yes, it'd make the grammar even more difficult, yet it would also let it go deeper into detail.
Some hours ago, I've found a polish site, where I found some information on the dual number. In polish it is called "Liczba podwójna".

With the limited polish I know until now, I've tried to decipher the pattern of dual noun declension and came to this conclusion (which I listed in a polish conjugation/declension PDF that I'm creating in order to make learning easier for me):

Masculine nouns
Nominative: Chłopaka, Kota, Samochoda
Genitive: Chłopaku, Kotu, Samochodu
Dative: Chłopakoma, Kotoma, Samochodoma
Accusative: Chłopaka, Kota, Samochoda
Instrumental: Chłopakoma, Kotoma, Samochodoma
Locative: Chłopaku, Kotu, Samochodu
Vocative: Chłopaka, Kota, Samochoda

Feminine nouns
Nominative: Dziewczyne, Krowe, Kawe
Genitive: Dziewczynu, Krowu, Kawu
Dative: Dziewczyma, Krowama, Kawama
Accusative: Dziewczyne, Krowe, Kawe
Instrumental: Dziewczyma, Krowama, Kawama
Locative: Dziewczynu, Krowu, Kawu
Vocative: Dziewczyne, Krowe, Kawe

Neuter nouns
Nominative: Niebie, Piwie, Słowie
Genitive: Niebu, Piwu, Słowu
Dative: Nieboma, Piwoma, Słowoma
Accusative: Niebie, Piwie, Słowie
Instrumental: Nieboma, Piwoma, Słowoma
Locative: Niebu, Piwu, Słowu
Vocative: Niebie, Piwie, Słowie

Nouns were randomly chosen by me, originally (in my PDF), to give an example of Singular and Plural declension in each grammatical case.
I suppose, the difference is obvious. I also read, that verbs in the first and second person plural have a different ending.
My (plural) = Ma (Dual)
Wy (plural) = Wa (Dual)

Robima (we (two) do) = Robimy (we (more than two) do)
Robita (you (two) do) = Robicie (you (more than two) do)
Robiliśma (we (two) did) = Robiliśmy (we (more than two) did)
Robiliśta (you (two) did) = Robiliśta (you (more than two) did)

About the conjugations, I'm absolutely sure. Yet, I'm not quite sure about the declension, as I can't read the page I've linked to very well, due to my still limited polish.


----------



## sokol

This actually:


Roy776 said:


> And in the end, to give some more examples:
> 
> *Oczyma* - With eyes (plural: *oczami*)
> *Rękoma* - With hands (plural: *rękami*)
> *Ręku* - In hands (plural: *rękach*)


is what is left of dual in some Slavic languages (e. g. Czech): there, dual is used still in some cases of "natural duality".

Interestingly, in Slovene, where dual is alive and well, you do _*not*_ use dual for natural duality - but plural! I've never searched an Old Church Slavonic grammar for what was in use when Slavic still had the dual (for those natural duality), possibly would be interesting to discuss by principle.

Anyway, as you're interested in the Polish dual (that what once was, as obviously it doesn't exist anymore - the cases where dual is still used, with natural duality, is only a survival of it but not quite the real thing ): search for Sorbian dual, it is the language closest related to Polish which still has it.
(Slovene dual endings would differ significantly, both because it is a South Slavic language and because there has been significant paradigmatic levelling).
And of course also Old Church Slavonic grammars would be interesting, as those would show a much older stage of the dual development.


----------



## Roy776

Thank you for that information!
What you say is quite interesting, that the dual is used for the plural. As I know nothing about the language, I can't say anything but quote the Wikipedia page, which says that the Dual and Plural are still used normally, but that they have similar declensions sometimes.
I've also taken a look at the declension of the *Sorbian Dual*. Actually it's really similar to what I already know in some way, yet it's hard to really say "Wow, it fits almost perfectly!" as we (or maybe rather I) know too little of the *Polish Dual*.


----------



## CapnPrep

Roy776 said:


> I am highly interested in seeing conjugation of verbs, and declension of nouns in the polish dual number. I've already searched through the internet, to the best of my abilites, but I haven't been able to find something like a conjugation/declension table.


I think you will like this:
Überblick über den heutigen (und früheren) Endungen der Substantive


----------



## Roy776

Wow, yes, that's an absolutely great find! Thank you very much! I'll definitely look into it, and maybe I can revise my list of the Polish Dual, some posts above.


----------



## bibax

I add the (Old) Czech dual for comparison. Note that the dual number has always only three distinct forms (I think it is true for all Slavic languages). You can see that in some cases the agreement between Czech and Polish is perfect (e.g. dvě pivě = dwie piwie _= two beers_, pivú = piwu, pivoma = piwoma; spelling is different, of course).

Masc. dual _(two good guys, ploughmen, sons, guests, elbows)_:

Nom. *dva dobrá chlapy, oráčě, syny, hosti, lokty* 
Gen. *dvú dobrú chlapú, oráčú, synú, hosťú, loktú* 
Dat. *dvěma dobrýma chlapoma, oráčoma, synoma, hostma, loktoma* 
Acc. = Nom. 
Loc. = Gen.
Instr. = Dat.

Fem. dual _(two good fishes, souls, ladies, bones, mothers)_:

Nom. Acc. *dvě dobřiej rybě, duši, paní, kosti, mateři*
Gen. Loc. *dvú dobrú rybú, dušú, paňú, kosťú, mateřú*
Dat. Instr. *dvěma dobrýma rybama, dušěma, paniema, kostma, mateřma*

Neuter dual _(two good cities, seas, signs, shoulders, chickens)_:

Nom. Acc. *dvě dobřiej městě, moři, znamení, rameni, kuřětě*
Gen. Loc. *dvú dobrú městú, mořú, znameňú, ramenú, kuřatú*
Dat. Instr. *dvěma dobrýma městoma, mořema, znameníma, ramenoma, kuřatma*

Dual in conjugation (inf. vésti _= to lead_, wieść in Polish):

Indicative present:

1st pers. *vedevě (vedeva)* (plur. vedeme)
2nd pers. *vedeta* (plur. vedete)
3rd pers. = 2nd pers.

Imperative:
1st pers. *veďvě (-va)* (plur. veďme)
2nd pers. *veďta* (plur. veďte)


----------



## Roy776

Thank you for that detailed information.

Well, it's really quite similar to Polish, so it should be possible for me now, to build the declensions and conjugations of the Polish Dual.
But one thing's quite interesting there. Normally, the adjective declensions take the declensions of the pronouns. *go = dobrego*, *ich = dobrych*, *jej = dobrej*.
But now, in the case of the Dual, they seem to take the forms of the nouns.


----------



## bibax

You has forgotten that all declinable pronouns had the dual number forms as well.

I add the dual to your example of the genitive case of the adjective dobry (_= good_):

*jego (go)* (gen. of _he/it_) - gen. singular masc./neuter, hence *dobrego*;
*jej* (gen. of _she_) - gen. singular feminine, hence *dobrej*;

*jeju* (gen. of _they two_) - gen. dual for all genders (at least in Old Czech), hence *dobrú* is genitive dual for all genders;

*ich* (gen. of _they_) - gen. plural for all genders, hence *dobrych*;

Thus the declension of the Czech adjective *dobrý* in the dual is:

Nom. Acc. *dobrá* (masc.), *dobřiej* (fem./neuter)
Gen. Loc. *dobrú* (all genders)
Dat. Instr. *dobrýma* (all genders)

In Czech we still say *dobrýma očima* (with/by good eyes, both adjective and noun in dual). However the Poles say *dobrymi oczyma* (only noun in dual, the adjective is in plural).


----------



## CapnPrep

Roy776 said:


> But now, in the case of the Dual, they seem to take the forms of the nouns.


As bibax said, the personal pronouns and nouns took the same endings in the dual. You mentioned the 12du NA forms _na_ (not _ma_) and _wa_ above; their oblique forms were GL _na*ju*_, _wa*ju*_ and DI _na*ma*_, _wa*ma*_.


----------



## Roy776

Yeah, I've understood that now, too, while I was extracting the information for my PDF. Quite interesting. But still, I'm still lacking information regarding the real verbs of polish. It seems to me, that Czech and Polish verbs are quite different, so that I can't create the polish verbs from the Czech with such certainity. Although I belive that every Verb in the "ma" form also ends in "-ma" and every "wa" form ends in "-ta".


----------



## bibax

Old Church Slavonic could also be useful.

The verb *vesti* (= to lead) in indicative present (sing. - plur. - dual):

1. vedő ...... vedemъ ...... vedevě
2. vedeši .... vedete ....... vedeta
3. vedetъ .... vedőtъ ...... vedete

(transliterated to Latin script, ő stands for nasal o)

Compare it with Old Czech *vésti*:

1. vedu ..... vedeme ...... vedevě (or vedeva)
2. vedeš .... vedete ....... vedeta
3. vede ...... vedú ......... vedeta

Are you sure that the dual ending of the 1st person is *-ma* in Polish?


----------



## Roy776

Actually, I'm not completely sure, but I have already read about it once before. Some time ago, so maybe I'm mistaken. I'll try to look it up, but as it's written "*vedeme*" in Old Czech, it could be, as the polish "*-ta*" also seems to become "*-te*".


----------



## CapnPrep

Roy776 said:


> I'll try to look it up, but as it's written "*vedeme*" in Old Czech


 That's the 1st person plural, not dual. The 1du ending in Old Polish was _-wa_, e.g. _jeswa_. You can find many details about conjugation in Kuraszkiewicz's grammar.


----------



## bibax

"vedeme" is plural (we lead), "vedeva" is dual (we two lead).

The Polish verb wieść is conjugated:

1. wiodę ........ wiedziemy ...... wiedziewa
2. wiedziesz ... wiedziecie ....... wiedzieta
3. wiedzie ...... wiodą ............. wiedzieta


----------



## Roy776

Sorry, just realised that now. 
Bueno, I've found that quote:
Czasownik w liczbie podwójnej miał trzy osoby i trzy końcówki. 
1. My bliższe (ja i Ty) - ma np. robima, robiliśma, róbma 
2. Wy (Ty i on) - ta np. róbta, robita, robiliśta 
3. My dalsze (ja i on) -wa np. piliśwa, robiliśwa itp.

This gives us these endings:
*1) "-ma" in case of "Ja i Ty"
2) "-ta" in case of "Ty i on" (Wy dwaj)
3) "-wa" in case of "Ja i on" (My dwaj) [if the person you talk to is not involved in the "we"]*

Still, I doubt that quote just a little bit, regarding the "*-wa*" ending. We still have to find a third person ending, so I could believe "*-wa*" to be the Dual ending of oni/one.


----------



## CapnPrep

I find this information highly dubious. I have never seen any suggestion (other than the forum posting you just quoted) that Old Polish had an inclusive/exclusive distinction in 1du pronouns and verbs. Kuraszkiewicz does not mention any pronominal form _ma_ or any verb forms in _-ma_. 



Roy776 said:


> We still have to find a third person ending, so I could believe "*-wa*" to be the Dual ending of oni/one.


No, I think the 23du endings merged (to _-ta_) and the 3du forms apparently fell out of use quite early. The 3du pronouns were not _oni/one_, but _jaż/jiż_ (see here).


----------



## Roy776

Hm... alright, that could be. As I said, I don't speak polish, I just started learning it and got interested in the Dual and the Pluperfect. 
But I'm still quite sure to have seen a special form for the my verbs in the dual.
The exact same page you posted (or rather, the book) now give us even more examples:

http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de...ztsewqeayaxssdasyztsqrseayaxs&no=65&seite=106


> Der altpoln. Dual _wa_ (my obaj, oboje) war gebraeuchlich im 14-16. Jahrhundert.


This means, *that the Dual form my was wa* and was used in the 14th till the 16th century.

And without being able to quote it directly, on this page here, there are the two (archaic) forms of "być".
They are jeśm, jeś, jest, jesmy, jeście, są. And directly afterwards "jeswa" and "jesta" are written. Those seem exactly like the assumed Dual forms. You can find them in the 7th and 8th lines.


----------



## bibax

I found the following:

_"Formy liczby podwójne są w polszczyźnie dziedzictwem prasłowiańskim. Pierwotne końcówki *1.os. -vě; 2.os. -ta i 3.os. -te* są kontynuowane w polskim jako: *1.os. -ewa; -iwa; -wa*, np. niesiewa, woziwa, jeswa, *2.os. i 3.os. jako -eta; -ita; -ta*, np. niesieta, wozita, jesta, jesteśta. 
Te same końcówki liczby podwójnej powtarzały się w pozostałych formach fleksyjnych czasownika. Liczba podwójna wyszła z użycia w XVI w. Zachowane szczątkowo gwarowe formy utraciły znaczenie liczby podwójnej."_

Roughly: _"The Polish dual forms are inherited from Protoslavic. The original endings *1. -vě, 2. -ta,  3. -te* had been changed to *1. -wa, 2. -ta, 3. -ta* in Polish. ...."_ 

Essentially the Czech and Polish dual endings are identical (1st pers. -va = -wa, 2nd and 3rd person -ta).

The personal pronouns (probably):

1st pers. dual (we two): *na, naju, nama;*
2nd pers. dual (you two): *wa, waju, wama;*


----------



## Roy776

Al final, thank you very much!
That was the last missing piece for the Dual. We now have the declensions of nouns, pronouns/adjectives and the verbs.
Or did I forget anything that we haven't yet got?


----------



## sokol

I know next to nothing about Polish (and even less about Old Polish), so I won't comment on that, especially as CapnPrep already raised his doubts. 
But for this here:


Roy776 said:


> What you say is quite interesting, that the dual is used for the plural.


Please be careful, it seems you've misunderstood that.

In Slovene, dual is used for things which come in twos - it is widely used and very much alive. Dual is however _*not*_ used with natural pairs - and only with them: if you refer to the eyes of a person you would use plural (and not dual!) because it is natural duality - the eyes of one person come in twos; but if you refer to eyes in other contexts where you refer to two eyes, but not the natural twos (e. g. two ocular prosthesis), then dual is required.

The interesting thing now is that in some Slavic languages there are residuals of dual number - which however, contrary to use in Slovene, are used _only_ for the natural dual.

That is what my post was about, concerning this aspect.


----------



## Roy776

Ah, okay, I understand now. Thanks for makin' that clear again. Although, there wouldn't have come so much harm from that, as my only concern is and will be Polish. 



bibax said:


> I found the following:
> The personal pronouns (probably):
> 
> 1st pers. dual (we two): *na, naju, nama;*
> 2nd pers. dual (you two): *wa, waju, wama;*



Judging from that, I belive my assumption, that it's "ma" is quite right.
*my, nas, nam, nas, nami, nas = ma, naju, nama, ma, nama, naju*
That would again work perfectly, as nowadays the *M of my* is also changed to an N in all other cases.
Secondly, nowadays verbs in the first person plural end in "-my", in the first person dual, they end in "-ma". Also another connection, if you ask me.
About *wa*:
That's the declension I've assumed, too.
*wy, was, wam, was, wami, was = wa, waju, wama, wa, wama, waju*


----------



## bibax

> Or did I forget anything that we haven't yet got?


Yes, the numerals 'two' and 'both'.

In Czech (Old or Modern) they have only the dual forms (it's quite natural):

Nom. Acc. *dva, oba* (masc.), *dvě, obě* (fem. neuter);
Gen. Loc. *dvou, obou* (Old Czech *dwú, obú*) for all genders;
Dat. Instr. *dvěma, oběma* for all genders;

*dva* = two (cf. Latin duo), *oba* = both (cf. Lat. ambo);


----------



## Roy776

In Polish it's partly the same. Also the original dual at times, at least for "dwa". I don't know the polish word for "both".

Dwa is declined like this:
*Masculine*
Nominativ: *dwaj/dwóch*
Genitiv: *dwóch*
Dativ: *dwóm*
Akkusativ: *dwóch*
Instrumental: *dwoma*
Lokativ: *dwóch*

*Feminine*
Nominativ: *dwa*
Genitiv: *dwóch*
Dativ: *dwóm*
Akkusativ: *dwa*
Instrumental: *dwoma*
Lokativ: *dwóch*

*Neuter*
Nominativ: *dwie*
Genitiv: *dwóch*
Dativ: *dwóm*
Akkusativ: *dwie*
Instrumental: *dwoma/dwiema*
Lokativ: *dwóch*


----------



## CapnPrep

Roy776 said:


> This means, *that the Dual form my was wa* and was used in the 14th till the 16th century.


Yes, it looks like _wa _was used for both 1du and 2du in the nominative (< Common Slavic _vě_ and _va_, respectively). To avoid this ambiguity, it looks like the 1du accusative form _na_ spread to the nominative, resulting in bibax's paradigms:


bibax said:


> 1st pers. dual (we two): *na, naju, nama;*
> 2nd pers. dual (you two): *wa, waju, wama;*


(which I already provided in #11 above ).



Roy776 said:


> Judging from that, I belive my assumption, that it's "ma" is quite right.
> *my, nas, nam, nas, nami, nas = ma, naju, nama, ma, nama, naju*
> That would again work perfectly, as nowadays the *M of my* is also changed to an N in all other cases.
> Secondly, nowadays verbs in the first person plural end in "-my", in the  first person dual, they end in "-ma". Also another connection, if you  ask me.


I really don't understand why you think this is correct, since no reliable sources confirm the existence of the 1du pronoun _ma_ or the verb ending _-ma_ in Polish.

According to this thesis (p. 8ff) there is/was a 1du form _ma_ in closely related West Slavic varieties (Kashubian, Slovincian). But not in Old Polish. 

Finally, I found a site with some cheat-sheets about Common Slavic and Old Polish morphology (integrating information from several different sources). It's all in Polish, though.Chomikuj: *puella800*​


----------



## Roy776

CapnPrep said:


> Yes, it looks like _wa _was used for both 1du and 2du in the nominative (< Common Slavic _vě_ and _va_, respectively). But since subject pronouns were generally omitted, maybe this wasn't too confusing.
> 
> According to this thesis (p. 8ff) there is/was a 1du form _ma_ in closely related West Slavic varieties (Kashubian, Slovincian). But not in Old Polish. And again, I haven't seen any sources that confirm a verb ending _-ma_. I'm not sure what makes you so sure that this is the correct ending.
> 
> Finally, I found a site with some cheat-sheets about Common Slavic and Old Polish morphology (integrating information from several different sources). It's all in Polish, though.Chomikuj: *puella800*​



That thesis is quite believable for me. We have to think about it. When we talk about the Dual, we barely speak about the distinct (from other, related languages) Polish as it is today. The Dual has become obsolete (as far as I know) sometime in the 19th century. And before that, there were many more similarities to Polish's related languages.



CapnPrep said:


> I really don't understand why you think this is correct, since no reliable sources confirm the existence of the 1du pronoun _ma_ or the verb ending _-ma_ in Polish.



Yeah, sorry. Now that I again looked at all the information, it seems it's really *-wa* as the first person dual ending, and *-ta* as the second and third person dual ending.
But still, of course, it's just my opinion and an assumption, but *ma* as a pronoun seems quite possible to me, as *my* also changes to an *N *in any other form. But well, it's just an assumption. I don't take it as the real thing.


----------



## OBrasilo

Actually, there is some evidence about the _-ma_ ending of 1st person dual. It's actually used in the Dolenjska dialect of Slovenian, as opposed to the standard _-va_. I wouldn't be surprised if the same form were to be formed in Polish at some point.


----------



## Roy776

OBrasilo said:


> Actually, there is some evidence about the _-ma_ ending of 1st person dual. It's actually used in the Dolenjska dialect of Slovenian, as opposed to the standard _-va_. I wouldn't be surprised if the same form were to be formed in Polish at some point.



Yeah, and I know of dialects of the polish language, that also use the Dual. And I remember from those dialects that there was something with -ma, yet I don't remember what it was actually, so I can't proof anything.


----------



## Ben Jamin

bibax said:


> "vedeme" is plural (we lead), "vedeva" is dual (we two lead).
> 
> The Polish verb wieść is conjugated:
> 
> 1. wiodę ........ wiedziemy ...... *wiedziewa*
> *2. *wiedziesz *... *wiedziecie *....... wiedzieta*
> 3. wiedzie ...... wiodą ............. *wiedzieta*


 
These endings are still in use (have recently been) in certain Polish dialects, but as simly plural endings, without any distinction between plural and dual.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Roy776 said:


> In Polish it's partly the same. Also the original dual at times, at least for "dwa". I don't know the polish word for "both".
> 
> Dwa is declined like this:
> *Masculine*
> Nominativ: *dwaj/dwóch*
> Genitiv: *dwóch*
> Dativ: *dwóm*
> Akkusativ: *dwóch*
> Instrumental: *dwoma*
> Lokativ: *dwóch*
> 
> *Feminine Neuter*
> Nominativ: *dwa*
> Genitiv: *dwóch*
> Dativ: *dwóm*
> Akkusativ: *dwa*
> Instrumental: *dwoma*
> Lokativ: *dwóch*
> 
> 
> *Neuter*
> * Feminine*
> Nominativ: *dwie*
> Genitiv: *dwóch*
> Dativ: *dwóm*
> Akkusativ: *dwie*
> Instrumental: *dwoma/dwiema*
> Lokativ: *dwóch*


----------



## OBrasilo

sokol said:
			
		

> Interestingly, in Slovene, where dual is alive and well, you do _*not*_  use dual for natural duality - but plural! I've never searched an Old  Church Slavonic grammar for what was in use when Slavic still had the  dual (for those natural duality), possibly would be interesting to  discuss by principle.


I think that's an innovation in Slovenian. In the Freising Monuments, written in the Old Slovenian of cca. 900 CE, you find things like _pred božima očima_ (meanign _before God's eyes_), indicating that the dual was still used for natural duality.


----------



## swintok

Ukrainian preserves a vestigial dual form that is only found in the collective numbers двоє, троє, четверо, п'ятеро, etc.  This form of the cardinal numbers are only used for people (Нас було четверо - There were four of us) neuter nouns (двоє вікон - two windows) or with items where the word only exists in the plural (Я купив троє штанів - I bought three (pairs of) pants).

The dual form of the cardinal numbers only exists in the nominative case.  When they decline, they decline as regular cardinal numbers.

Unlike with regular cardinal numbers, the noun after this collective number is always in the genitive plural when the collective number is in the nominative case.  In the other cases the declension of the following noun follows the regular declension rules for the cardinal numbers.


----------



## OBrasilo

In Slovenian, I am not sure. The construct certainly exists for five, _bilo nas je pet_ and higher numbers, and certainly _Kupil sem troje hlač_ for _I bought three (pairs of) pants_, but not sure about the _bilo nas je_ and other numbers. I know _dvoje_, _troje_, and _četvero_ exist as words but I'm not sure of their usage. And _petero_ might exist but I'm not sure. I'd need to check the SSKJ (Dictionary of the Slovenian Literary Language) for these words to clear up. But for _There were two of us_, we would say _Bila sva dva_, in clear dual.
But I don't see the dual in your Ukrainian constructs. From what I know, modern Ukrainian retains only the singular and the plural, and loses the dual. Hence why _Nas bulo dvoje_ replaced older *_Bulě svě dva_ (dual tentatively based on Old Church Slavonic forms).
The interesting thing is - other Slavic languages lost the dual but retained it for things that come in natural pairs. Slovenian retained the dual but somehow evolved to _not_ use it for things that come in natural pairs, even though it did in the past (see the Freising Monuments). This begs the question - do Upper and Lower Sorbian, which have also retained the dual, use it for things that come in natural pairs, or not?


----------

