Skip to content

The Dual in Hebrew and Comparative Linguistics

Gesenius and other scholars use comparative Semitic philology, including external inscriptions (such as the Mesha Stele, Akkadian texts, Ugaritic, Phoenician, and Arabic), to understand the dual form in Hebrew. The dual ending (ים-) is primarily used for things that naturally come in pairs, but its historical development and use in place names and abstract terms have been analyzed using external evidence due to the challenge of understanding how things like “heavens” and “waters” would be dual, leading many translators to disregard the morphology completely.

Gesenius’ Discussion on the Dual:

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…

(Gesenius Hebrew Grammar §88c)

  1. The Dual is Ancient:

    • It existed in early Semitic languages, including Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Old Arabic.
    • However, in Hebrew, it is restricted mostly to nouns (never verbs, adjectives, or pronouns).

  2. Formation of the Dual:

    • The standard ending ־ים (e.g., ידים “two hands”) is added to the noun’s base form.
    • Feminine nouns take ־תים (e.g., שפתים “two lips”).
    • Some nouns undergo phonetic changes due to stress shifts.

  3. Place Names and the Mystery-Duals:

    • Some place names have a dual ending (e.g., מצרים “Egypt,” אפרים), but their dual sense is unclear. Are they dual then?
    • In the Mesha Stele, words like צהרם (“midday”) suggest that ים- might have developed later in some cases.
    • More mysterious are the dual words like שמים “dual heavens,” and  מים “dual waters”. Perception and bias would determine here what they are. The idea of dual waters does not fit any “dual sense” as Gesenius states if you think of it only in terms of historical comparative Semitics. Water doesn’t even have any “pluralness” but similar words may be found in cognate languages that can be used to build a case against duality, or even the plurality, and thus lead scholars to translate it in what could be called an “evolutionary-contextual” or “temporal-contextual” (as opposed to eternal) interpretation which means that the dual or plural is unimportant because it was only Semitics and not mystery and thus was a merely primitive way of describing what is simply “water” or “sky” and thus no one needs to bother about it. In this way, what is written is put out of view altogether.

  4. Use of External Evidence:

    • The Mesha Stele (Moabite inscription) shows forms like צהרם (midday) and מאתן (200), providing insight into Hebrew morphology.
    • Akkadian and Ugaritic help reconstruct how the dual evolved.
    • Arabic has parallel forms, confirming how dual suffixes were used in different Semitic languages.

Before the Masoretes preserved the Tiberian vocalization, Hebrew had no written vowels, so scholars rely on comparative Semitic linguistics to reconstruct ancient Hebrew forms. External inscriptions give independent confirmation of how words were formed, pronounced, and used outside the biblical tradition.

Comparative Semitic linguistics is a dual-edged sword—it can both illuminate and obscure linguistic understanding. While it can provide crucial external evidence to reconstruct ancient Hebrew and other Semitic languages, it also introduces potential pitfalls that can mislead interpretations if not applied carefully.

How Comparative Semitic Linguistics Can Undermine Understanding

  1. False Cognates & Overgeneralization

    • Just because two words look similar across Semitic languages does not mean they share the same etymology or grammatical function.

  2. Dialects and Language Evolution

    • Hebrew evolved independently of Akkadian, Arabic, and Ugaritic. Assuming one language’s grammatical rules apply directly to another can distort understanding.
    • Example: The Mesha Stele has צהרם (midday), which looks different from Hebrew double/dual noon light צהרים. If we assume Hebrew originally had the same form as Moabite, we might misunderstand how the dual developed. What is a “dual noon light” anyway? The mystery is enough to lead Semitic study away from a dual meaning. Bias will lead one to search for a reason why a dual word is not a dual word. Equally, bias will lead one to search for a reason why a masculine pronoun is actually feminine one. Or even more egregious— how the word חסד chesed in one instance out of a hundred does not mean “mercy” but, actually, “perversion” in Leviticus 20. If the dual is argued against, this leaves it as a plural, and while it is still strange to say “noonlights” or “middays” it is apparently sufficient for scholars to now translate the word as noon or midday, putting the real morphology out of view altogether.

  3. The “Reconstruction Fallacy”

    • Some linguists try to reconstruct “original” forms of Hebrew based on Arabic or Akkadian. However, these languages have undergone separate changes and do not necessarily reflect an earlier Hebrew state.
    • Example: Some suggest Yerushalayyim (ירושלים) which is dual, was originally Yerushalem (ירושלם), which is not dual, based on Aramaic forms. This would be a case against it being dual word, and just an evolved form of an original. But Hebrew developed independently. Bias comes into play again: is the text and its letters and grammar part of a greater mystery, i.e. on purpose, or is it all merely a mess of historical linguistic evolution?

When Comparative Linguistics is Useful

  • Confirming shared roots and sound shifts (e.g., Hebrew קֹדשׁ and Arabic qudus “holy”).
  • Understanding rare Hebrew words (e.g., Akkadian ekallu helps explain Hebrew הֵיכָל “palace, temple”).
  • Tracing grammatical structures (e.g., Ugaritic shows early forms of Hebrew verbal patterns).

A Tool, Not a Rule

Comparative Semitic linguistics is useful but not absolute—it must be weighed against internal Hebrew evidence rather than blindly applied. It can confirm, expand, or distort linguistic understanding depending on how it is used.

Comparative Semitic linguistics can sometimes obscure rather than clarify a form’s true function. In the case of שמים (“dual heavens”) and מים (“dual waters”), linguistic comparisons with other Semitic languages have led many scholars to deny their dual nature, even though the morphology in Hebrew suggests otherwise.

Why The Heavens and The Waters May Actually Be True Duals

  1. They Fit the Dual Morphological Pattern

    • The words end in ים-ַ֫, the standard dual suffix in Hebrew (e.g., ידים “two hands,” עינים “two eyes”).
    • If they were purely plurals of extension, we might expect a different plural formation, like שמוֹת (cf. שמות for “names”) or מימים (cf. לילים for “nights”).

  2. Evidence from Parallel Duals

    • Some words in Hebrew show a true dual in one context but a plural of extension in another:
      • קרְנים (“horns”) can refer to two specific horns or be an abstract plural.
      • לחיים (“cheeks”) refers to a pair but also functions more broadly.
    • This suggests that שמים and מים could have originally been true duals that later expanded into more general plurals.

  3. Masoretic Vocalization Preserves the Dual Form

    • The Masoretes preserved the ַ֫יִם ending rather than shifting the form to a more common plural pattern. This indicates that the dual sense was still recognized in some capacity. Amid much of the catastrophe of the niqqud vowel pointing that preserved many incorrect morphological interpretations, markings such as these provide a very strong evidence.

How Comparative Semitic Linguistics Obscures This

  • Akkadian šamû (“heavens”) and Arabic māʾ (“water”) lack a dual form, leading some scholars to assume that the Hebrew forms are not true duals either.
  • However, this assumption relies on external comparisons rather than Hebrew’s own internal morphology.
  • Hebrew may have retained an archaic dual that was lost in other Semitic languages.

Conclusion: The Dual May Be More Than Just a Fossil

  • The morphology in Hebrew strongly supports a dual interpretation.
  • Comparative evidence has led some scholars like the “Hebrew Master” Gesenius to deny this, but it is possible that Hebrew uniquely preserved an ancient dual form while other Semitic languages did not.
  • If these were originally true duals, they may have taken on a plural of extension function later on, but that does not mean they were never dual in the first place. And perceived “function” should not usurp morphology nor obscure truth, if one believes every stroke of the pen matters.