appended to the ground-form,[1] e.g. יָדַ֫יִם both hands, יוֹמַ֫יִם two days. In the feminine the dual termination is always added to the old ending ath (instead of ־ָה), but necessarily with ā (since it is in an open syllable before the tone), thus ־ָתַ֫יִם, e.g. שָׂפָה lip, שְׂפָתַ֫יִם both lips. From a feminine with the ending ־֫ ־ֶת, e.g. נְח֫שֶׁת (from neḥušt) the dual is formed like נְחֻשְׁתַּ֫יִם double fetters.
[b] With nouns which in the singular have not a feminine ending, the dual termination is likewise really added to the ground-form; but the latter generally undergoes certain changes in consequence of the shifting of the tone, e.g. כָּנָף wing (ground-form kănăph), dual כְּנָפַ֫יִם, the first ă becoming Šewâ, since it no longer stands before the tone, and the second ă being lengthened before the new tone-syllable. In 1 K 1624, 2 K 523b the form כִּכְּרַ֫יִם (which should be כִּכָּרַ֫יִם) evidently merely points to the constr. st. כִּכְּרֵי, which would be expected before כֶּ֫סֶף; cf. כִּכָּרָ֑יִם in 2 K 523 a, and on the syntax see § 131 d. In the segholate forms (§ 84a a) the dual ending is mostly added to the ground-form, e.g. רֶ֫גֶל foot (ground-form răgl), dual רַגְלַ֫יִם; cf., however, קְרָנַ֫יִם (only in the book of Daniel), as well as קַרְנַ֫יִם from קֶ֫רֶן horn, and לְחָיַ֫יִם from לְחִי cheek (as if from the plurals קְרָנוֹת, לִחָיִם).—A feminine dual of an adjective used substantivally occurs in עֲצַלְתַּ֫יִם a sluggish pair (of hands) Ec 1018 from the sing. עָצֵל.
[c] Rem. 1. Certain place-names were formerly reckoned as dual-forms (so in earlier editions of this Grammar, and still in König’s Lehrgebäude, ii. 437), viz.— (a) those in ־ַ֫ יִן and ־ָן, e.g. דֹּתַ֫יִן Gn 3717a (locative דֹּתָ֑יְּנָה, but in 17b דֹּתָ֑ן), and דֹּתָן 2 K 613; קַרְתָּן Jos 2132, identical with קִרְיָתַ֫יִם in 1 Ch 661 (cf. also the Moabite names of towns in the Mêša‛ inscription, line 10 קריתן = Hebrew קִרְיָתַ֫יִם; line 30 בת דבלתן = בֵּית דִּבְלָתַ֫יִם Jer 4822; lines 31, 32 חורנן=חֹרוֹנַ֫יִם Is 155, &c.); (b) in ־ָם, Jos 1534 הָֽעֵינָם ( = עֵינַ֫יִם Gn 3821). The view that ־ָן and ־ָם arise from a contraction of the dual terminations ־ַ֫ יִן (as in Western Aramaic, cf. also nom. âni, accus. aini, of the dual in Arabic) and ־ַ֫ יִם seemed to be supported by the Mêša‛; inscription, where we find (line 20) מאתן two hundred = מָאתַ֫יִן, Hebrew מָאתַ֫יִם. But in many of these supposed duals either a dual sense cannot be detected at all, or it does not agree at any rate with the nature of the Semitic dual, as found elsewhere. Hence it can hardly be doubted that ־ַ֫ יִן and ־ַ֫ יִם in these place-names only arise from a subsequent expansion of the terminations ־ָן and ־ָם: so Wellhausen, Jahrbücher für Deutsche Theologie, xxi. 433; Philippi, ZDMG. xxxii. 65 f.; Barth, Nominalbildung, p. 319, note 5; Strack, Kommentar zur Genesis, p. 135. The strongest argument in favour of this opinion is that we have a clear case of such an expansion in the Qerê perpetuum (§ 17 c) יְרֽוּשָׁלַ֫יִם for יְרֽוּשָׂלֵם (so, according to Strack, even in old MSS. of the Mišna; cf. Urusalim in the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, and the Aramaic form יְרֽוּשְׁלֵם): similarly in
