I have re-read my reply and I should admit its formulation was very unfortunate. Of course, di and da are not "articles" per se, but a numeral which invariably *must* precede any noun in dual. As di/ da are obligatory, this created a sort of a mental shortcut for me, and this is why I have called the words "articles", which is obviously wrong from strict grammar point of view. Sorry for the confusion.
Is meisse 7rl
Sent from my iPhone
> On 26 Feb 2016, at 08:55, Liz Gabay <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I wrote --
>>>> dá luirchuire - two foals. The alternate 'di luirchuire' could be the preposition 'de' plus 3rd singular feminine pronoun,
> Romanas wrote --
>> I do not agree. What we have here is the dual article of feminine gender. DIL does not give gender of luirchuire, so I take it as evidence the gender was not clear. Nevertheless, the ending -iu in the next sentence suggests masculine, but we cannot discount di entirely. LU was written in MidIr period when -e, -i and -iu were >pronounced all alike, mixing up was common, so we have to be careful with basing our judgement on the ending alone.
> Hi Romanas,
> I would expect the dual article of feminine gender to be 'in dí'. Was it often written without the 'in'? Liz