Slovene Nouns and Adjectives:Non-Standard Use of Dual Number from1925 to 2015

Tjaša Jakop

ContentsSlovene Language: Standard Slovene, Colloquial Varieties, and Dialects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Standard Slovene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Colloquial Variety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Slovene Dialects and Subdialects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4The Dual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4The Dual in Slovene Varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Dual Forms in Standard Slovene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Linguistic Materials on the Dual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Dual Nouns in Slovene Dialects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Statistics on Dual Use of Nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Dual Nouns: Tesnière . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Masculine Nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Feminine Nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Neuter Nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Dual Adjectives in Slovene Dialects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Statistics on Dual Use of Adjectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Dual Adjectives: Tesnière . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Dual Nouns (and Adjectives) in Colloquial Slovene Varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15The Geography of Dual Loss and Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

T. Jakop (*)Fran Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian Language, Scientific Research Centre of the SlovenianAcademy of Sciences and Arts, Ljubljana, Sloveniae-mail: Tjasa.Jakop@zrc-sazu.si

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019S. D. Brunn, R. Kehrein (eds.), Handbook of the Changing World Language Map,https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73400-2_152-1

1

AbstractDual is a grammatical expression of number that some languages use in additionto singular and plural, referring to precisely two entities. The dual number existedin Proto-Indo-European language. In modern Indo-European languages, the dualis an archaism and the one that has been preserved only in a small number ofSlavic languages: in addition to Slovene, also in Upper and Lower Sorbian andKashubian. Slovene language expresses the dual through grammar (and not, forexample, through vocabulary). This chapter presents this most visible and specificSlovene grammatical category preserved to the present in standard Slovene,colloquial Slovene varieties, and various Slovene dialects (over 40). Dual numberuse goes also well beyond boundaries between Slovene and neighboring lan-guages and their variants: it is used in some dialects in Austrian Carinthia and insome Kajkavian dialects in Croatia.

Using linguistic geography methods (i.e., morphological maps), the mostrecent linguistic data from the whole of the Slovene linguistic territory is com-pared with older data from 1925 Tesnière’s book and atlas on Slovene dual, andthe tendencies of disappearing of the dual forms in modern Slovene dialects areobserved. Using latest linguistic data (2003–2015) will enable even more precisecomparisons and contrasts to be drawn with the dual in all variants of Slovenelanguage. The distribution of the dual in different dialects is important because itallows us to look for the driving forces behind the change: these can be external(contact with other languages) or internal (influences from other dialects).

KeywordsSlovene language · Slovene dialects · Morphology · Dual number · Mapping

Slovene Language: Standard Slovene, Colloquial Varieties,and Dialects

Slovene is one of the south Slavic languages. (It is a matter of some debate as towhether “Slovene” or “Slovenian” should be the default term for the language. Thischapter uses Slovene exclusively.) Slovene is spoken in the area where Germanic,Romance, Slavic, and non-Indo-European Hungarian languages have been in con-tact for centuries. Slovene language has five neighboring languages: Italian, Friulian,German, Hungarian, and Croatian. Slovene is spoken by approx 2 million people inSlovenia and in certain pockets within neighboring countries, for example, innorthern Italy, southern Austria, and southwest Hungary.

Although the Slovene language is a single entity with specific rules that can belearned for the purposes of general communication, there are in reality severalSlovene language varieties with often quite significant grammatical differencesbetween them (Jakop 2012). Contemporary standard Slovene (official variety,national language) is the written and spoken variety of the language used in formaland official settings (i.e., books and news media). In less formal speech settings, such

2 T. Jakop

as shows on television or radio, when people are speaking spontaneously, thecolloquial standard is used, which is less strict in terms of its grammatical rules.

Standard Slovene

Standard Slovene is to some extent a “constructed” language whose specific mor-phological, lexical, and phonological features are not specific to the spoken varietyof any particular region of Slovene; although it is mainly based on the variety spokenin Ljubljana in the sixteenth century (Slovene capital is situated just within theborders of the Upper and Lower Carniola dialect areas). The Protestant writers ofthat time were important to the initial development of the standard language: PrimožTrubar wrote the first book in Slovene printed in 1550 consolidating standardlanguage for the first time and Jurij Dalmatin (1994) finished the translation of theBible into Slovene in 1584. From that time on, the variety of the central Sloveneregion (i.e., the variety of Lower and Upper Carniola) came to dominate. Thenineteenth century saw the introduction of new word forms more similar to OldChurch Slavonic and other (contemporary) Slavic languages. The phonology ofstandard Slovene is, therefore, Carniolan, but the morphology and lexica are theresult of historical reconstruction – they do not come from a single dialect base.

Contemporary standard Slovene is based on three dialects: Upper Carniolan,Lower Carniolan, and Styrian. For any native speaker of Slovene, standard Sloveneis their second language, if we take the dialect of their hometown or village as theirfirst language. Dialect speakers from more remote parts (noncentral) are obliged toswitch codes according to the context in which they are speaking, that is, to family,local friends, friends from other parts of the country, on official business. Bycontrast, a speaker from the Ljubljana region – the capital and the largest city ofSlovenia – has merely to choose between colloquial and standard Slovene accordingto the speech situation (formal vs. informal), because their dialect is much closer tothe former.

Colloquial Variety

Slovene colloquial varieties have formed between standard Slovene on the one handand a local dialect(s) on the other. In addition to the colloquial variety of Ljubljana(Toporišič 2000), some other colloquial varieties or urban dialects are in use in largerSlovene towns such as Maribor or Celje (both in Styrian dialect group), which arethe second and third largest cities in Slovenia (Fig. 1). The colloquial variety ofLjubljana (central colloquial variety) functions somewhat as the “national” collo-quial variety, while the colloquial varieties of Maribor (northern Styria variety) orCelje (southern Styria variety) might best be described as “regional” colloquialvarieties. So-called regional colloquial varieties are all affected by local speechhabits and are by and large used only in spoken form; their phonology, morphology,

Slovene Nouns and Adjectives: Non-Standard Use of Dual Number from 1925 to 2015 3

syntax, and vocabulary differ from written standard Slovene. Regional colloquialvarieties are often used by actors in Slovene comedies and funny commercials.

Slovene Dialects and Subdialects

Slovene dialects are divided into seven groups, following Karta slovenskih narecij[Linguistic Map of Slovene Dialects], as follows: 1. Carinthia (Koroska), 2. Littoral(Primorska), 3. Rovte, 4. Upper Carniola (Gorenjska), 5. Lower Carniola(Dolenjska), 6. Styria (Stajerska), 7. Pannonian (Panonska). The dialect groups arefurther divided into 36 dialects and 12 subdialects (Table 1; Fig. 2) (Jakop 2008). Asubdialect is a subdivision of dialect; subdialects of one dialect are quite close toeach other, differing mainly in phonetics.

The Dual

The dual is a grammatical expression of number and a special feature of the Slovenelanguage that denotes two persons or objects; for example: brat “brother” (sg.),bratje “brothers” (pl.), brata “two brothers” (du.). The dual number does not appearin any of the neighboring languages, and only rarely in other languages of the world(e.g., modern standard Arabic). In modern Indo-European languages, the dual is anarchaism and one that has been preserved only in a small number of Slavic

Fig. 1 Three major cities of Slovene: Ljubljana (central colloquial variety), Maribor (northernStyria variety), and Celje (southern Styria variety)

4 T. Jakop

Table 1 Slovene dialect groups

Dialect group Dialects (German name if in Austria; Italian name if in Italy)

Carinthia(1a–1f) Zilja (Gailtal), Rož (Rosental), Obir (Hochobir), Podjuna (Jauntal),Mežica, and Northern Pohorje dialects

Littoral (2a–2i) Rezija (Resia), Ter (Torre), Soča, Nadiža (Natisone), Brda, Karst(with Banjšice subdialect), Istria (consisting of Rižana and Šavrinisubdialects), Notranjska, and Čičarija dialects

Rovte (3a–3f) Tolmin (with Bača subdialect), Cerkno, Črni Vrh, Horjul, PoljanskaSora, and Škofja Loka dialects

Upper Carniola (4a–4c) Gorenjska dialect, Eastern Gorenjska subdialect, and Selška Soradialect

Lower Carniola (5a–5e) Dolenjska dialect and Eastern Dolenjska subdialect, Northern BelaKrajina, Southern Bela Krajina and Kostel dialects (with Babno Poljesubdialect)

Styria (6a–6f) Posavje dialect (consisting of Zagorje-Trbovlje, Laško and Sevnica-Krško subdialects), Upper Savinja dialect (with Solčava subdialect),Central Savinja, Central Štajerska, Kozjansko-Bizeljsko, andSouthern Pohorje dialects (with Kozjak subdialect)

Pannonian (7a–7d) Slovenske Gorice, Prlekija, Haloze, and Prekmurje dialects

Fig. 2 Map of Slovene dialects. (Adapted by T. Jakop 2007; © Fran Ramovš Institute of theSlovenian Language, ZRC SAZU; Anton Melik Geographical Institute, ZRC SAZU, Institute ofAnthropological and Spatial Studies, ZRC SAZU; sources of topographic data; © Survey andMapping Authority of the Republic of Slovenia)

Slovene Nouns and Adjectives: Non-Standard Use of Dual Number from 1925 to 2015 5

languages: in addition to Slovene, in Upper and Lower Sorbian and Kashubian; inother Indo-European languages the dual has been replaced by the plural.

The dual is an integral element of contemporary standard Slovene, the varietyused in literature and in official writings and speech; it is used when two people orthings are being referred to. It also appears in the majority of Slovene dialects, but tovarying degrees. As one shall see, some dialects are witnessing a gradual disappear-ance of the dual and its replacement by plural forms. Colloquial Slovene varieties arefollowing the tendencies of surrounding dialects, influenced by standard Slovene.

The first serious treatment of the dual came in 1827 when Wilhelm von Humboldtgave a lecture to the Berlin Academy in which he presented the various aspects of thedevelopment and functioning of the dual; grammarians before him had tended toregard it as “ballast” or unnecessary refinement. Humboldt argued that it was neithera luxury nor an unnecessary outgrowth on the body of the language and opposed theidea that the dual had arisen by chance as a species of limited plural. His belief wasthat the dual had come about in response to the phenomenon of duality and that itwas a collective singular of the numeral two.

Humboldt pointed out differences in the way the dual was used across the rangeof languages: limited to personal pronouns, used exclusively for natural pairs, orappearing in all categories. It is tempting to regard him as something of a lone voicethroughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth; and while the dual wasrecognized as a linguistic feature that distinguished Slovene from even the closestSouthern Slavic languages during that key period of linguistic nationalism, viz., thenineteenth century, it was not until almost 100 years after Humboldt that the firstproper examination of the Slovene dual was undertaken. It took a Frenchman,Lucien Tesnière, to accomplish it (Jakop 2008).

The French linguist Lucien Tesnière (1893–1954), author of Slovene LinguisticAtlas of Dual Forms, emphasized in this 1925 work the weakening of the dual as agrammatical category of number in his Atlas linguistique pour servir à l’étude duduel en slovène (1925b) and to the atlas associated with the monograph Les formesdu duel en slovène (1925a). According to Haugen (Corbett 2000), Jakobson told hisstudents that Tesnièr’s book (published in Paris in 1925) on dual number [Fr. duel]became a bestseller for potential readers who assumed it was about dueling inSlovenia.

In his monograph on the Slovene dual, Tesnière came to the conclusion thatSlovene was the only language in which one could trace the disappearance of thedual as it happened. This book contains a synchronic structural presentation of theuse of the dual in Slovene dialects based on intensive fieldwork in 1921 and 1922(within 104 data points). He noted (1925a) that the use of the dual was prescribed toa greater extent in the standard language than was the case in certain dialects. Serbianlinguist Aleksandar Belić (1876–1960), author of the book, O dvojini u slovenskimjezicima [On the Dual in the Slavic Languages] in 1932, already stated that the dualwas being lost in Slovene dialects to a greater extent than in the standard language(1932). Both, Tesnière and Belić were interested in the sequence in which it wasdisappearing in individual word categories and the forms within them.

6 T. Jakop

The following research proceeds from an analysis of the situation regarding dualendings in flexible word categories in modern standard Slovene, colloquial Slovenevarieties, and Slovene dialects, according to the state of preservation of the dualnumber.

Slovene linguist Fran Ramovš stated in the introduction to his Morfologijaslovenskega jezika [Morphology of the Slovene Language] (1952: 7) that

Proto-Indo-European language had the dual, which is now only rarely preserved. [. . .]However, the Slovene dual is no longer the old dual because it is always connected withthe numeral dva [‘two’]. It has only preserved dual verbal constructions that also use thenumeral; this helps to preserve it. (Jakop 2008: 9)

The Dual in Slovene Varieties

The dual is one of the most interesting areas of difference between the differentvarieties of Slovene. In Standard Slovene, use of the dual demands an agreementbetween pronoun and verb, noun and verb, or – with the emphasis of this chapter –noun and adjective. Masculine dual forms all end in -a: dva nova avtomobila staparkirana (na dvoriscu) = *twoDUAL newDUAL carDUAL parkDUAL in court-yard = “two new cars are parked (in the courtyard)”; midva greva (na morje) “we[two male persons/one male + one female person] are going (to the seaside).”

Phonetic agreement in the feminine dual is much weaker, and the use of -i, �e,and -a endings consequently gives it less stability: dve lepi deklici hodita (pocesti) = *twoDUAL prettyDUAL girlDUAL walkDUAL down the street = “two prettygirls are walking (down the street)”, midve peceva (kruh) = *weDUAL bakeDUAL(bread) = “we [two female persons] are baking (bread).” Dual forms of femininenouns have been mixed with plural forms since the sixteenth century. In Proto-Slavic, hard and soft feminine declension in the dual differed in the nominative,accusative, and vocative (e.g., *ribe: *dusi). In Slovene, the ending -i from softdeclension has become prevalent in feminine nouns in the dual: either -i from the softdeclension was generalized or, possibly,�e in the unstressed position changed into -i(Logar 1996).

The dual is integral to contemporary standard Slovene, required by Slovenegrammar and used for all inflected word types (nouns, pronouns, adjectives, andverbs), in all cases (the genitive and locative plural and dual forms have the sameendings), and in all grammatical persons. In the colloquial varieties of wider centralSlovenia (i.e., Ljubljana, Celje), the dual is still used for masculine nouns, while dualforms for feminine nouns have been replaced by the plural: dva brata “two brothers”(m. du.), dve sestre “two sisters” (f. du./pl.). In the central Slovene dialects, thesituation with the nominal dual is very much the same as in colloquial varieties ofcentral Slovenia, while dialects in the northwest and northeast still preserve thefeminine dual, e.g., dve sestri = “two sisters” (f. du.).

Slovene Nouns and Adjectives: Non-Standard Use of Dual Number from 1925 to 2015 7

Dual Forms in Standard Slovene

Although Slovene has six cases, only four different forms are used in dual nounparadigms, since the nominative has the same ending as the accusative (i.e., dvastola “two chairs”); in the case of the animate, masculine objects take the sameending as the genitive in the singular (i.e., dva brata “two brothers”), and theinstrumental takes the same ending as the dative (i.e., dvema bratoma).

In Standard Slovene, because of the congruence between dual forms of adjectivesand nouns, dual forms of adjectives, like nouns, end in -a in the masculine nomina-tive/accusative dual (dva nova stola “two new chairs”), while feminine and neuterforms end in -i (dve novi mizi “two new tables,” dve novi okni “two new windows”).Dual noun and adjective forms in the genitive and locative are identical to the pluralforms (dveh/treh novih stolov “two/three new chairs”). Separate dual forms havebeen preserved only in personal pronouns in the genitive and locative, i.e., naju,vaju, njiju (1, 2, 3 gen.); pri naju, pri vaju, pri njiju (1, 2, 3 loc.).

As far as natural pairs are concerned, these had already been pluralized by thesixteenth century and now function as collective nouns. The dual is used in suchcases only when an emphasis needs to be drawn using the quantifiers dva/dve, “two,”or oba/obe, “both,” i.e., dve roki “two arms/hands,” obe nogi “both legs/feet” (f du),otherwise plural (non-marked) forms like roke, “arms/hands” (f pl), and noge “legs/feet” (f pl) are used; the dual is required only for random pairs (Jakop 2008). Wecould make more of a mystery out of the absence of the dual here than it perhapsdeserves. Most likely, as the language developed, the dual was seen as redundant innatural pairs precisely because their duality is obvious from a nonlinguistic fact, thatis, having two legs and two eyes is taken for granted as part of human existence(Jakop 2008).

Linguistic Materials on the Dual

The presentation of the types of dual in Slovene dialects is based on the dialectmaterial from the whole of the Slovene linguistic territory, that is, the territory inwhich Slovene is spoken. It encompasses Slovenia as well as areas in neighboringcountries in which Slovene-speaking minorities reside (northern Italy, southernAustria, southwestern Hungary, and northern areas of Croatia). The material wassystematically gathered for the Slovene Linguistic Atlas [Slovenski lingvisticni atlas– SLA] established by the linguist Fran Ramovš in 1934, but proper preparation forthe Atlas started, after the second World War, at the Fran Ramovš Institute ofthe Slovenian Language. Both the net-points and the questionnaire were rearrangedon several occasions during this period. The current SLA network has beenexpanded to include over 400 data points of local speeches, and the SLA question-naire contains 870 numbered questions. The first 665 questions are lexical (in 2011and 2016 the first two volumes of SLA were published, containing the dialectallexemes from the semantic field man and farm); grammatical questions (from

8 T. Jakop

question No. 700 onwards) mainly cover the phonetics and only a few covermorphology.

The author has relied primarily on material collected for the Slovene LinguisticAtlas project. Forty-four answers in the questionnaire (23 lexical and 21 grammati-cal) provide material for this study of the dual. However, a closer look reveals thatthe conjugation and declension patterns of inflected word types are often incomplete;usually we just find a noun or adjective form in the nominative singular. For data onmissing dual forms, the material was also taken from existing literature on dialec-tology, supplemented with data from the author’s own fieldwork. The material fordual forms in colloquial varieties was gathered by means of a special survey theauthor drew up from 2003 to 2015.

A map of dual variability across Slovenian dialects in Slovenia and neighbouringareas from 0–13% (white dots) to 89–100% (black dots) penetration of dual usagehas been compiled from data on dual forms in Jakop 2008 (Marušič et al. 2016). Thismap does not give an insight into dual usage for dual forms according a word type(noun or verb etc.) and/or word form (case, person, gender), etc.

Dual Nouns in Slovene Dialects

In Slovene dialects, dual forms have been most consistently preserved in masculinenouns (Jakop 2008). They are slightly less well-preserved in neuter nouns, mainly inthe extreme east, but also in the extreme west part of the country. The central dialectshave the dual ending -a as a result of masculinization (e.g., dva okna “two win-dows,” m. nom. du.) instead of the neuter dual ending -i (dve okni “two windows,”n. nom. du.). Feminine nouns tend most toward pluralization: dve krave “two cows”(f. nom. pl.) instead of dve kravi “two cows” (f. nom. du.); the same applies tofeminized neuter nouns (in eastern regions): dve okne “two windows” (f. nom. pl),instead of dve okni “two windows” (n. nom. du.). Feminine nouns exist in the dualonly in Carinthia, Lower Carniola (most of the subdialects in the Dolenjska dialectarea), northeastern Styria, and in the northeast of the Pannonian dialect group(as well as in Standard Slovene of course). Some Carinthian and Littoral dialectshave retained the dual in the nominative/accusative, while the dative/instrumentalhas been pluralized. The pluralization of feminine nouns has occurred in centraldialects (most of Upper and Lower Carniola, and southwestern Styria).

Dialects in the far northwest and the eastern part of the country have preserved thedual to the same level as in standard Slovene. A considerable number of dialects usedual forms in the nominative/accusative only, with the plural having replaced thedual in all other cases. Genitive and locative dual forms have been pluralized instandard Slovene and all dialects; the exceptions are a handful of subdialects in thePannonian dialect group where masculine locative noun endings preserve the dualform -oma (bratoma “two brothers,” m. dat. du.) (Fig. 3), like the instrumental.Although the dative/instrumental has a separate dual form in standard Slovene, thereis a tendency in the majority of western and central dialects for dual forms in thedative/instrumental to be abandoned and replaced by plural forms.

Slovene Nouns and Adjectives: Non-Standard Use of Dual Number from 1925 to 2015 9

Statistics on Dual Use of Nouns

m. noun, o-stem, nom. du. (275 answers):

Form Number No. of examples % Dual %

Brata du. 265 96 96

Bratje pl. 10 4

m. noun, o-stem, dat. du. (275 answers):

Form Number No. of examples % Dual %

Bratoma du. 83 30 30

Bratom pl. 192 70

f. noun, a-stem, nom. du. (324 answers):

Form Number No. of examples % Dual %

Kravi du. 165,5 51 51

Krave pl. 158,5 49

Fig. 3 Map brata: bratoma “two brothers” (m NOM: DAT du)

10 T. Jakop

f. noun, a-stem, dat. du. (295 answers):

Form Number No. of examples % Dual %

Kravama du. 85 29 29

Kravam pl. 210 71

n. noun, nom. du. (237 answers):

Form Number No. of examples % Dual %

Okni n./f. du. 101 43 84

Okna m. du. 98 41

Okna n. pl. 15 6

Okne f. pl. 23 10

Dual Nouns: Tesnière

Masculine Nouns

Tesnière thought that dual forms of masculine nouns would not disappear in thenominative/accusative since they showed no signs of doing so (1925a, b). However,newer material shows that while the dual -a ending for masculine nouns in thenominative/accusative has been preserved in the majority of Slovene dialects, thereare a handful in the extreme southwestern of the Littoral dialect group and south-eastern Bela Krajina in which the dual has been replaced by the plural (Fig. 3).

According to Tesnière, pluralization of dual masculine noun forms was at a moreadvanced stage in the dative/instrumental than the nominative/accusative (1925a);indeed, his findings showed that the majority of the western and central dialects hadplural forms for the former alongside preserved dual forms for the latter. He believedthat this pluralization had originated in northern Croatia, passing through BelaKrajina and central Styria, and even Ljubljana, toward Trieste, Istria, and Carinthia.He concluded from this that the dual would disappear first in Carniola, then inLittoral and Carinthia, and finally in the northeastern dialects. If one compares Fig. 3,one can see that, by and large, Tesnière’s findings from 1920s still hold today.

Feminine Nouns

In the concluding section on dual forms of feminine nouns in the nominative/accusative, Tesnière states that the dual forms of feminine nouns are considerablyless robust than those of masculine nouns (1925a, b). According to him, femininenouns existed in the dual only in Carinthia, western Littoral, Lower Carniola (mostof the subdialects in the Dolenjska dialect area), northeastern Styria, and in thenortheastern of the Pannonian dialect group (as well as in the standard Slovene, of

Slovene Nouns and Adjectives: Non-Standard Use of Dual Number from 1925 to 2015 11

course). The latest material generally confirms Tesnière’s findings, although thepluralization of feminine dual forms in the nominative/accusative has taken holdover a slightly wider area in the west (Littoral) since then (Fig. 4).

Neuter Nouns

Tesnière used the noun okno “window” to serve as an example of a neuter noun in allthree numbers (1925a, b). As far as the dual form (okni) is concerned (Fig. 5), thesituation has not changed since Tesnière’s day, although one data-point in Rovtedialect group now has a masculine dual (okna) instead of Tesnière’s pluralizedfeminine form (okne). The process of masculinization of singular neuter nouns hasspread slightly from Upper Carniola toward Carinthia in the north and westwardstoward Rovte, while feminization has spread westwards from Styria toward Carin-thia. Tesnière did not mention the feminization of okno in the western dialects –specifically, in the Bača subdialect (Rovte).

Dual Adjectives in Slovene Dialects

The adjectival dual is better preserved in the masculine while feminine adjectives aremore inclined to be pluralized (Jakop 2008). Adjectives are generally congruent, interms of number, with the nouns they describe. Exceptions to this are some data-points

Fig. 4 Map kravi “two cows” (f NOM du)

12 T. Jakop

in Rož, Notranjska (Littoral), and Dolenjska (Lower Carniola), where nouns pre-serve the dual better than adjectives (e.g., dobre: hceri “*goodPLURALdaughtersDUAL,” dobrim: sinoma “to goodPLURAL sonsDUAL” [pl. adj.: du. noun]).

Because of the necessary congruence between nouns and adjectives, dual forms ofadjectives have the same (dual) endings as nouns, ending in -a in the masculine dual inthe nominative/accusative (dobra) and in -i in the feminine (dobri). The pluralizationof dual adjectives has occurred in the same dialects that have witnessed the pluraliza-tion of dual nouns (dobri sinovi “good sons,” dobre hcere “good daughters”). Only in ahandful of dialects do nouns appear in the dual alongside plural adjectives.

Statistics on Dual Use of Adjectives

m. adj., nom. du. (201 answers):

Form Number No. of examples % Dual %

Dobra du. 184,5 92 92

Dobri pl. 16,5 8

f. adj., nom. du. (168 answers):

Form Number No. of examples % Dual %

Dobri du. 83 49 49

Dobre pl. 85 51

Fig. 5 Map okni “two windows” (n NOM du)

Slovene Nouns and Adjectives: Non-Standard Use of Dual Number from 1925 to 2015 13

Dual Adjectives: Tesnière

The recent data are almost identical to Tesnière’s findings on masculine dual formsfor adjectives in the nominative/accusative (�a endings) and feminine and neuterdual forms in -i. In the Styrian dialect of Central Štajerska, pluralization hasadvanced only in the feminine (e.g., dobre), where Tesnière wrote dual forms with-i endings, while masculine forms retain the dual (e.g., dobra). Tesnière noted pluralforms for both masculine and feminine in Karst (Littoral), while recent dialect mapsshow the dual for both genders in the nominative/accusative (dobra and dobri).

Tesnière recorded the dative dual ending -oma for masculine and feminine nounsand adjectives in the locative at one data-point in Central Štajerska, Styria (1925a);today, this is characteristic only of the Pannonian dialect group in the east and in theextreme western parts of Carinthia. Elsewhere, apart from a few data points dottedaround the country, plural forms have replaced the dual. Tesnière states that adjec-tives have preserved the dual to a much lesser extent than nouns (1925a). Heconcludes, therefore, that adjectival declension is more prone to the pluralizationof dual forms than nominal and pronominal declension, with personal pronounspreserving the dual best and for longest.

Dual Nouns (and Adjectives) in Colloquial Slovene Varieties

In the colloquial varieties of Ljubljana and Celje, the dual is used for masculinenouns (and adjectives), while dual forms for feminine nouns (and adjectives) havebeen replaced by the plural: dva (lesena) stola “two (wooden) chairs” but dve(lesene) mize “two (wooden) tables” (f. du. = pl.). In the colloquial variety ofMaribor, the dual is used for masculine and feminine nouns: dva (visoka) brata“two (tall) brothers” and dve (debeli) kravi “two (fat) cows” (f. du.).

Conclusions

The dual is a prescribed element of contemporary standard Slovene, but has tendedtoward much stronger and consistent congruence with the plural in Slovene collo-quial varieties and dialects, particularly in oblique cases and in all feminine forms.The focus of this chapter has been on differences in the stage of preservation of thedual forms in individual flexible word categories, namely in nouns and adjectives.Owing to the development dynamics of Slovene dialects, the features and use of thedual vary widely, influencing also colloquial varieties.

The results are comparable with a similar work from the 1920s, viz., the Linguis-tic Atlas of the Dual [Atlas linguistique pour servir à l’étude du duel en slovène] byFrench linguist Lucien Tesnière. For Tesnière (1925a), the dual was disappearing inthe following sequence: in cases, first in the locative, then in the genitive, dative andinstrumental, and finally in the nominative/accusative; by gender, first in the femi-nine, then in the neuter, and finally in the masculine gender. With some exceptions,

14 T. Jakop

these tendencies of disappearing of the dual forms are confirmed by the newer dialectmaterial.

By examining the changes that have occurred in dual forms since the publicationof Tesnière’s work, we can see the extent to which the dual is changing in variants ofthe spoken language and in which direction they are spreading and progressing. Theobjectives of this research are to establish those dialects (and/or colloquial varieties)that tend to avoid the use of (some) dual forms, replacing them completely with theplural. It looks as if the dual will not disappear as rapidly as predicted, if it disappearsat all.

Summary

In Slovene, the preservation of the dual was to a significant degree a consciousprocess, part of the construction of the standard language that took place between thesixteenth and nineteenth centuries, and this is the main reason for such differences ofdual preservation in different forms of Slovene (written, spoken, or dialectal). InSlovene dialects, the dual is less well-preserved in neuter nouns than in masculinenouns, but better preserved in neuter nouns than in feminine nouns. Because of thenecessary congruence between nouns and adjectives, the pluralization of dualadjectives has occurred to the same extent and in the same dialects that havewitnessed the pluralization of dual nouns.

The Geography of Dual Loss and Preservation

Dialects in the extreme northwest and extreme east have preserved the dual inmasculine nouns to the same level as required in standard Slovene. All the otherwestern and central dialects retain the dual in the nominative/accusative, while thedative/instrumental has been pluralized. The dual has completely disappeared frommasculine nouns in only a few data-points on the borders with Croatia and Italy.

Dialects in the extreme northwest and extreme east have preserved the dual infeminine nouns to the same level as required in standard Slovene. Some Carinthianand Littoral dialects have retained the dual in the nominative/accusative while thedative/instrumental has been pluralized. The dual has completely disappeared fromfeminine nouns in central dialects: most of Upper and Lower Carniola, and south-western Styria.

In the dual, the neuter has been preserved in the west and extreme northeast,masculinized in a wider central area (nearly half of Slovene territory), and feminizedin the eastern dialects. Pluralization of the dual is found at some data-points on theborders with Italy and Croatia. Masculinization started in Gorenjska around theseventeenth century, subsequently spreading to the other central dialects. Today, it isfound in some dialects in Carinthia, the centre of Rovte, the whole of UpperCarniola, and a large part of Lower Carniola; it has also spread into western Styria.In these dialects, it is masculinization that has helped to preserve the dual because the

Slovene Nouns and Adjectives: Non-Standard Use of Dual Number from 1925 to 2015 15

masculine preserves the dual much better than the neuter and feminine. Some ofthese dialects still preserve the neuter in the singular, and to a lesser extent in theplural as well. This shows that masculinization is more widespread in the dual than inthe singular, and more widespread in the singular than the plural.

Because of the necessary congruence between nouns and adjectives, dual formsof adjectives have the same (dual) endings as nouns, ending in -a in the masculinedual in the nominative/accusative (dobra “good,” masc.) and in -i in the feminine(dobri “good,” fem.). The pluralization of dual adjectives has occurred in the samedialects that have witnessed the pluralization of dual nouns (dobri sinovi “goodsons,” masc., dobre hcere “good daughters,” fem.). Only in a handful of dialects donouns appear in the dual alongside plural adjectives.

References

Belić, A. (1932). O dvojini u slovenskim jezicima [On the Dual in the Slavic Languages]. Beograd:Srpska kraljevska akademija.

Corbett, G. G. (2000). Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Dalmatin, J. (1994). Biblia, tu ie, vse Svetu pismu, Stariga inu Noviga testamenta = Bibel, das ist,

die gantze heilige Schrifft. Ljubljana: DZS. [Originally published in 1584, Wittenberg].Jakop, T. (2008). The dual in slovene dialects. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer.

(Diversitas linguarum 18) [Diversities of Language 18].Jakop, T. (2012). Use of dual in standard Slovene, colloquial Slovene and Slovene dialects.

Linguistica, 52, 49–362.Logar, T. (1996). Oblikoslovje: Praslovanska a-sklanjatev v slovenskih narečjih. In: Tine Logar.

Dialektoloske in jezikovnozgodovinske razprave [Dialectological and linguistic historical dis-cussions] (pp. 319–323). Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU.

Marušič, F., Zaucer, R., Plesnicar, V., Razborsek, T., Sullivan, J., & Barner, D. (2016). Doesgrammatical structure accelerate number word learning? Evidence from learners of dual andnon-dual dialects of slovenian. PLoS One. Available at https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159208. Accessed 19 July 2018.

Ramovš, F. (1952). Morfologija slovenskega jezika [Morphology of the Slovene Language].Skripta, prirejena po predavanjih [Script adapted after lectures by] prof. dr. Fr. Ramovsa vl. 1947/48, 48/49. Ljubljana: DZS.

Tesnière, L. (1925a). Les formes du duel en slovène [The dueling forms in Slovenian]. Paris:Libraire Ancienne Honoré Champion.

Tesnière, L. (1925b). Atlas linguistique pour servir à l’étude du duel en slovène [Linguistic Atlas tostudy the duel in Slovenian]. Paris: Libraire Ancienne Honoré Champion.

Toporišič, J. (2000). Slovenska slovnica [Slovenian grammar]. Maribor: Obzorja.von Humboldt, W. (1963 [1827]). Über den Dualis. In: W. von Humboldt (Ed.), Werke. Vol.

3. Schriften zur Sprachphilosophie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftl. Buchgesellschaft. https://www.amazon.de/Werke-3-Schriften-zur-Sprachphilosophie/dp/B0000BJNHV

16 T. Jakop