*du̯o-
‘two’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Class
- Base
- Grammar
- num
- ID
- 592
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/t(u)w(a/i)-?/, 2-
‘two’1.1.1Transmission
The cardinal numeral ´2´ is attested 23 times in the HLuw. corpus. Most of the attestations date to the 8th century BCE, only one from Karkamiš probably originates from the late 10th or early 9th century BCE.
[AH.B.]
1.1.2Forms
The table above does not include a form found in MARAŞ 4, §7: (“2”)tu-wa/i-zi(-)wa/i-za. Long assumed to be a fully syllabic attestation of the numeral reading /t(u)winzi/ (Hrozný 1933a:83f., Hawkins 2000a:257), it is now regarded to belong together with the signs following it and read /tuwazziwanza/, a dat./loc. pl. of the adjectival form in /-wan-/ of the toponym /Tuwazzi/.
[AH.B.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The spelling of this lexeme shows little variation, as the stem is always covered by the number sign ‘2’, represented by two parallel vertical lines. The HLuw. vertical lines used for all numerals between one and nine mimic the way numbers are written in cuneiform, e.g. in CLuw. and Hittite, where ‘2’ is represented by two vertical wedges next to one another. Hrozný 1933a:83f. interpreted the underlying phonology to be /tuwa/i-/ based on a spelling found in MARAŞ 4, §7, which was long taken as a fully syllabic rendition of the numeral (thus still Hawkins 2000a:257; EDHIL:826f.), but which has now received a reinterpretation as a toponym: (“2”)tu-wa/i-zi-wa/i-za. Still, the use of the sign as a determiner for that toponym makes it highly likely that the start of the town name closely resembles the phonological shape of the numeral, even if a link based on homophony does not constitute the same level of certainty an attestation of the numeral proper would have provided. Alternatively, it is possible that the onset reflects a labio-velar instead, i.e. /kuwa/i-/, because of the Luwian sound change *dw- > /kw-/.
[AH.B.]
1.1.4Meaning
Spelt exclusively in number form, the meaning of this lexeme was clear from the start (see Hrozný 1933a:83f.). As a numeral, it does not feature prominently in most of the HLuw. corpus, which consists mainly of representational, commemorative and dedicatory inscriptions. However, numerals in general occur in high frequency in other texts outside that dominant genre, e.g. in the KULULU lead strips, recording allocations of goods and occupancy of dwellings.
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
It is likely that the lexeme is subject to i-mutation, inflecting like a regular adjective, but the attested forms do not show the change for a lack of phonetically spelt ending.
[AH.B.]
1.1.6Derivatives
1.2 Cuneiform Luwian
2(-an)
‘two’1.2.1Transmission
Attested in Luwian rituals in NS.
[Zs.S.]
1.2.2Forms
| 2 | KBo 29.46, 1’ | (CTH 761, N/A) |
| 2-an | KBo 13.261, 5’ | (CTH 770, NS) |
| ˹2˺-an | KBo 29.16 ii? 10’ | (CTH 760, NS) |
Attestations following CLL:298 (who adds a question mark to KBo 29.16 ii? 10’) with KBo 29.46, 1’ added following Starke 1990a:30 n. 19 (not yet in Laroche 1959a) checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz. As EDHIL:827 rightly points out, the meaning of dūwan in KUB 35.109 ii 6’ cannot be determined, thus no connection to 2(-an) can be established, contra HEG T,D:92 with ref. (cf. s.v.). Melchert rightly did not attempt at a definition of the form of 2-an, since the fragmentary contexts do not allow this. Starke 1990a:30 suggests acc. sg., which is definitely a possibility in case of KBo 29.16 ii? 10’, if 2-an is indeed in congruence with the following išarwiliyan ‘of the right’.
[Zs.S.]
1.2.3Meaning ‘two’
There is no doubt regarding the basic meaning of the word due to the spelling (Starke 1990a:30; CLL:298; although not included in the other Luwian glossaries of Laroche 1959a; Tischler 2008a, Tischler 2016a; and Ünal 2016a), even if the precise meaning of the form 2-an is not entirely clear due to its unidentified morphology.
[Zs.S.]
1.2.4Derivatives
1.3 Lycian A
*kb-/tu-
‘two’1.3.1Compounds
- kbisñne/i-
- kbisñtãta
- qñnãkba
1.3.2Derivatives
1.5 Sidetic
*tb(V)-
‘two’1.5.1Derivatives
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘two’
The exact phonological shape of the Proto-Anatolian word for ‘two’ can be reconstructed from Hittite, Luwian and Lycian. In Cuneiform Luwian, the title LÚdu-ia-na-al-li-iš contains the numeral root du- ‘two’ followed by the suffix -i(ya)- (cf. Lyc. kbi(je)-) (Eichner 1992a:61, contra EDHIL:827 who reconstructs an i-stem on the basis of Lycian, although there are no i-stems among appellatives in Lycian, only mutated stems and stems in -i(je)-). Lyc. A kb- and Lyc. B tb- points toward a root reconstruction *du̯- (Laroche 1967a:50). While *du̯- becomes Luw. kw- (cf. Luw. /kwaya-/ ‘to fear’ < *du̯ei̯-), the retention of du- in LÚdu-ia-na-al-li-iš forces us to assume that the labial glide becomes vocalic, i.e. *du̯- + -i̯o- + -n- + -é-lo- > *du-i̯o-n-é-lo-, in this specific derivative (cf. the reconstruction of Lyc. A kbi(je)-). Unfortunately, this does not tell us whether the same thing happened in the cardinal number (notice that it did not happen in Lycian kbi(je)-). The root for ‘two’ is also preserved in Hittite dān ‘a second time’ (< *du̯ói̯om as per Cowgil apud Eichner 1992a:56, Melchert 1994a:128, although a genitive plural *du̯o-om would be even better), tāuga- ‘two-years old’ (< *du̯ó-i̯ugo-) (differently Eichner ibid. and EDHIL:424 reconstruct *du̯oi̯o-i̯ugo-, Melchert 1994a:168 *du̯ói̯om-i̯ugo-) and UZUdānḫašti- n. ‘double-bone’ (Eichner ibid. with further literature, EDHIL:827). In this language, the sequence *du̯- developed to d- losing the labial glide (Melchert ibid.).
The Lycian high numeral qñnã-kba shows us that the numeral *kba ‘two’ could be built with *-eh2 as an indeclinable form. Therefore, one can reconstruct a Proto-Anatolian form *du̯o- for the declinable numeral (as seen for example in HLuw. 2-zi) and *du̯eh2 for the indeclinable one.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
The stem under investigation is the PIE cardinal number ‘2’.
3.1.1Root etymology
As PIE *du̯o(‑)/*du̯i- ‘2’ is a basic lexeme, no root etymology is given here, cf. LIPP II:173f., Winter 1992a:17, and also PAnat. *téri-/tri-´ ‘3’.
Blažek 1999a:175f. reports four different proposals, none of which he considers acceptable (ibid. 178).
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
The cardinal number ‘2’ in IE is inflected as an o‑stem (PIE *du̯o-) and, when used as a compound member or in derivatives, as an i‑stem (*du̯i‑), cf., e.g., Lyc. B tbiplẽ ‘twice’ and Lyc. B kbi(je) ‘(an)other’.
The paradigm characteristically shows dual forms in Core IE, cf. nom. du. m. *d(u)u̯ó‑h1 (Ved. d(u)vā́, Gk. δύω, etc.),EDG:359 reconstructs PIE “*duu̯‑eh3 (?)”.nom./acc. du. f. *d(u)u̯éh2‑ih1 (Ved. d(u)vé, TochA f. we, OCS dŭvě, etc.), nom./acc. du. n. *d(u)u̯ó‑i̯h1 (Ved. d(u)vé, TochB wi, Alb. OGheg. dȳ, etc.), etc. In Anatolian, which lacks the category dual, the cardinal is inflected in the plural (cf. HLuw. and PAnat. reconstruction above).In some of the non‑Anatolian languages, the inflection changed from dual to plural motivated by the loss of the dual as a category.
The compositional form PIE *du̯i- represents the equivalent to PIE *tri- ‘3’ (cf. Lyc. B trpplẽ ‘thrice’, PAnat. *téri-/tri-´ ‘3’, etc.). While PIE *tri- ‘3’ can be explained as a zero‑grade variant of the PIE i‑stem *tréi̯‑/*tri‑´, the stem vowel of PIE *du̯i- demands further explanation. Either the o- and i‑stem inflection is regarded as parallel to that of pronominal stems like the interrogative/indefinite pronoun *ku̯o‑/*ku̯i- (cf. EWAia I:766) or the i‑stem was analogically transferred from the cardinal ‘3’: *tris ‘thrice’ → *du̯is ‘twice’ → *du̯i- ‘two’, cf., e.g., LIPP II:173f., AiGr III:343, Rix 1992a:173. Whatever the correct explanation may be, the stem *du̯i- existed alongside *du̯o- already before the split‑off of Anatolian.
Alongside the inflected forms of ‘2’, the proto‑language also employed uninflected *d(u)u̯o, cf. the relic forms Gk. δύο, Goth. n. twa, etc. (EWAia I:762). It is thus permitted to view the inflection of the numeral as secondary.If the numeral started to inflect after the split-off of Anatolian and, thus, after the creation of the dual as a category, this may be an explanation for the discrepancy in number (plural in Anat. vs. dual in Core IE).
3.2.1Root etymology
As PIE *du̯o(‑)/*du̯i- ‘2’ is a basic lexeme, no root etymology is given here, cf. above sub Semantic reconstruction.
For different proposals, which cannot be maintained, cf. Blažek 1999a:175f.
[A.O.]
4. Transmission
PIIr. *d(u)u̯a- (du.) ‘2’, cf. nom. m. Ved. d(u)váu, d(u)vā́, YAv. duua, nom. Ved. f./n. d(u)vé, YAv. nom./acc. n. duiie (= *duue), duuaē(⸗ca), acc. YAv. f. duiie (= *duue), instr./dat./abl. Ved. d(u)vā́bhyam, dat. YAv. duuaēibya, gen./loc. Ved. d(u)váyos, gen. YAv. duuaiiā̊
in compounds: Ved. dvi- (dvi‑pád- ‘two‑footed’), Av. bi- (bi‑māhya- ‘lasting two months’), Ved. dvā- (dvā́⸗daśa ‘12’, better interpreted as univerbation)
EWAia I:761–763, 765f., Grassmann 1996a:649f., Emmerick 1992a:165f.; Bartholomae 1904:762, ALF:173f., Emmerick 1992b:292f.
Gk. δύ(ϝ)ο ‘2’, Myc. nom./acc. dwo, Hom.(+) δύ(ϝ)ω, δυ(ϝ)ε (IG.V.1.1, 428–421 BCE), gen./dat. Ion.‑Att. δυοῖν, (later) Att. δυεῖν, gen. δυῶν, dat. δυοῖσ(ι), δυσί, Myc. instr. (?)du‑wo‑u‑pi /dwōuphi/ (PY Eb 149.2+); δύο/δύω sometimes uninflected (Hom.+)
in compounds: δί- (δί‑πους ‘two‑footed), δω- (δώ⸗δεκα ‘12’, better interpreted as univerbation), δυο (δυο⸗καί⸗δεκα ‘12’, conversion or univerbation)
GEW I:424f., GEW III:78, DELG:301f., EDG:359, LSJ:453, LSJSuppl:99, DMic I:199f., Waanders 1992a:370f.
Arm. (pl.) nom. erkow‑k‘ ‘2’, acc. erkow‑s, gen.‑dat. erkow‑c‘, instr. erkow‑k‘
in compounds: erk‑eam ‘two years old’ (< *du̯i‑), erko⸗tasan ‘12’ (< *du̯o‑, univerbation)
EDAIL:268f., Winter 1992b:348f.
Lat. nom. m., nom./acc. n. duo ‘2’, n. also dva (inscr., 1st c. BCE+), gen. m./n. dvo[m] (Gargliano Bowl, ±500 BCE), duum (Naev.+), duōrum (Pl.+), dat./abl. m./n. duōbus; duo sometimes uninflected
Lat. nom. f. duae, acc. f. duās, gen. f. duārum, dat./abl. f. duābus
Umbr. nom. m. dur (< *duōs) (bis, IgT VIb.50, VIIa.46), ?acc. f. duf (hapax, IgT Ib.41) (cf. desen‑duf ‘12’), nom./acc. n. tuva, dat. m./n. tuves (hapax, IgT III.19), duir (bis, IgT Vb.10, 15), loc. f. tuver⸗e (hapax, IgT IIa.33)
in compounds: PItal. *du̯i‑, cf. OLat. dui‑, Lat. bi- (dui‑dens, bi‑dens ‘having two teeth’), ?Umbr. di- (di‑fue ‘bi‑fidum’), PItal. *du‑, cf. Lat. du- (du‑pondium ‘(lit.) two weights’), Umbr. du- (dat. pl. du-pursus ‘biped’)
WH I:381–383, EM:187f., EDLIL:183, Untermann 2000a:192f., OLD²:636f., Coleman 1992a:390–392
OIr. nom./acc. m. dóu, dáu ‘2’, gen. de, (sec.) f. dí, dat. dib, n. dáN, etc. unstressed: OIr. nom./acc. m. da‑L, f. di‑L, n. de‑N, gen. da‑L, dat. deib‑L, dib‑L, OW dou, OBret. dou, dau, Corn. dow, dew
EDPC:110, eDIL s.v. dá, Greene 1992a:504–506 (OIr.), 538f. (Brit.)
Goth. nom. m. twai ‘2’, f. twos, n. twa, gen. m. twaddje, dat. twaim, acc. twans, Crim. Goth. tua, ON m. tveir, f. tvær, n. tvau, etc., OHG loc. zweio
in compounds: PGerm. *tu̯i‑, cf. Goth. twi‑, OE twi‑, OHG zwi- (OE twi‑fēte ‘two‑footed’, OHG zwi‑houbit ‘two‑headed’)
EDPG:529, GED:350f., de Vries 1977a:601, Kluge & Seebold 2011a:1019, Ross & Berns 1992a:565–571
Alb. m./n. dy, f. dȳ ‘2’
AED:79, Demiraj 1997a:151f., Hamp 1992a:905f.
Lith. m. dù ‘2’, f. dvì, gen. dviejũ, etc., Latv. m./f. divi, sometimes uninflected, OPr. m./f. dwai
OCS(+) m. dŭva ‘2’, f./n. dŭvě, gen./loc. dŭvoju, dat./instr. dŭvěma, instr. m. dĭvama (hapax)
in compounds: PBalt. *du̯i‑, cf. Lith. dvì‑gubas, OPr. dwi‑gubbus ‘two‑fold’, PSlav. *du̯o‑, *du̯u‑, *du̯ě-
ALEW I:235–237, EDBIL:143, EDSIL:130, PKEŽ² s.v. dwai, Comrie 1992a:730–734
TochA nom./acc. m. wu ‘2’, f. we, TochB m./f. wi
DTB²:651, Winter 1992c:103f.