BOAS] HANDBOOK OP AMERICAN INDIAN LANGUAGES 709 



The existence of a real plural seems to be closely associated with 

 a dual, and all of the few nouns taking plural suffixes take dual 

 forms as well. The use of either is, however, rare. The dual is more 

 common than the plural. The dual is formed by the sufRx -tso; as, 



ama'm ye'pitsom. those two men 



mopd'tso my two daughters 



moing Tcil'letsohi those two women's . . . 

 This dual suffix is the same as that used with the third person of the 

 personal pronoun (see § 31). The use of the dual suffix seems to be 

 restricted to a very few terms of relationship and words for human 

 beings only. 



Plural forms are equally if not more restricted. In the few examples 

 noted in which the plural is used, the noun takes indifferently -sotyi 

 or -sem., the suffixes used for the plural of the second person and of 

 the first and third persons of the pronoun, respectively (see § 31). 

 The suffixes are added in all cases directly to the stem. 



ye'psdm men, husbands {ye'pi man, husband) 



mai'dilsem men {mai'dil man) 



Tcu'lesem women (kil'le woman) 



As regards nouns, thus, the ideas of number are but little devel- 

 oped ; the development, however, is greater in the northwestern than 

 in the northeastern dialect, and it is altogether lacking apparently 

 in the southern dialect. In the first two cases, the degree of devel- 

 opment of the expression of number in the noun is parallel to the 

 regularity of the development of its expression in the pronoun. 



In pronouns, the feeling for the necessity of exactness seems to 

 have been more strongly felt. On the whole, the forms may be said 

 to be developed regularly, and, as opposed to the fragmentary nature 

 of these ideas in the case of the noun, we have a full series of dual 

 and plural forms in the independent personal pronoun. In the 

 suffixed form of the pronoun, however, this completeness is lost, 

 and distinctions of number are made only in the first person. As 

 will be seen by referring to the paradigm of the subjective inde- 

 pendent personal pronoun (§ 31), there is some little confusion 

 in the series, the dual suffix of the second person being identical 

 with that of the plural suffix of the first and third persons. The 

 dual suffixes, again, are varied for the different persons {-sam, -sem, 

 -tsom), although the plural suffixes are more uniform, the first and 

 third persons being alike, with the second quite similar. In com- 



§28 



