Languages such as Sanskrit, Russian and Arabic, in addition to singular and plural forms, also have dual forms of pronouns a. There must been some reason behind this. Why did such a situation not arise in languages such as Hindi and English for example?
Regarding its lack in Hindi and English, for instance, a comelling reason may be the historical evolution of the above languages. Hindi (per se) is a recent language with roots in Sanskrit it is true, but also with roots in dialects of north India (Braj Bhasha) and in the Mughal "zabaan-i-Urdu" (a camp language with currency in the marketplace in Mughal and post-Mughal times). For instance, in the British Raj the language of the indigenous sipahis was referred to as "Romanized Urdu" (even in India's military post-Independence) to acknowledge the addition of English words to that common core of pre-existing language (basically a "pidgin" language, very new, very synthetic, that did not borrow some of the subleties and nuances of at least some of the languages in the linguistic family tree). English, with so many linguistic sources, is rather in the same situation. And, of course, each language is culturally dynamic. Linguistic usage may change with time -- independent of exposure to or synthesis with other linguistic traditions.
I hope historical linguists can shed further insight. Interesting topic....
I've learned through my (language) teaching of German, English, Spanish, Norwegian, Swedish and Thai that one question should be avoided. That is, why.
For English: Why is it food (long sound) and foot (short sound)? And blood (completely different vowel sound)?
For Thai: Why is it that ท has a /t/ sound, ร is an /r/ sound, but ทร together is pronounced as /s/?
These are conventions that language communities have agreed upon not science.
An idea that comes to my mind, where Arabic speakers could help. You might be lead to the notion that Arabic, in contrast to English, is especially interested in dual forms because the people favor couples. The social history may tell a different story, though.
You can add to your list the Ancient Egyptian (Old Egyptian and Middle Egyptian). In these languages, there are dual forms, that little by little become rarer. The root from which they derive are the plural forms. There are also dual forms in demonstrative adjetives and pronouns, at least in Old Egyptian. If you need more information, contact me about this question and I will send you some references, as, for example, A. Loprieno, 'Ancient Egyptian. A Linguistic Introduction', Cambridge 1995.
As in other languages, the dual is usually employed with substances and beings who in culture or in nature appear together as pairs, but the use for denoting simply "two" is also very usual.
On the other hand, in Spanish language we have the word "ambos" (both).
I hope this can help you.
Regards
Regarding its lack in Hindi and English, for instance, a comelling reason may be the historical evolution of the above languages. Hindi (per se) is a recent language with roots in Sanskrit it is true, but also with roots in dialects of north India (Braj Bhasha) and in the Mughal "zabaan-i-Urdu" (a camp language with currency in the marketplace in Mughal and post-Mughal times). For instance, in the British Raj the language of the indigenous sipahis was referred to as "Romanized Urdu" (even in India's military post-Independence) to acknowledge the addition of English words to that common core of pre-existing language (basically a "pidgin" language, very new, very synthetic, that did not borrow some of the subleties and nuances of at least some of the languages in the linguistic family tree). English, with so many linguistic sources, is rather in the same situation. And, of course, each language is culturally dynamic. Linguistic usage may change with time -- independent of exposure to or synthesis with other linguistic traditions.
I hope historical linguists can shed further insight. Interesting topic....
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics