Are we overdoing the restoration of duals? The Greek text of course has none, and those in the MSS are mostly fossils: pairs of hands, eyes, legs; two exceptions are Digenis's father and beloved uncle; and 12 locks (MS Mc). Otherwise the MSS usually prefer plurals (the bears, the hero's elbows [which don't seem to have attested duals in ESl in any case], the SS Theodore, etc. Our text is supposedly composed around the time the duals begin to decline (ca. 1250: Vlasto 3.31, p. 105). Perhaps we should tighten our retroversion rules: preserve those in the MSS, and restore for "natural pairs and two like objects" (Vlasto) where dual is attested elsewhere in the MSS, or in SDRIaXI-XIV?
Are we overdoing the restoration of duals? The Greek text of course has none, and those in the MSS are mostly fossils: pairs of hands, eyes, legs; two exceptions are Digenis's father and beloved uncle; and 12 locks (MS Mc). Otherwise the MSS usually prefer plurals (the bears, the hero's elbows [which don't seem to have attested duals in ESl in any case], the SS Theodore, etc. Our text is supposedly composed around the time the duals begin to decline (ca. 1250: Vlasto 3.31, p. 105). Perhaps we should tighten our retroversion rules: preserve those in the MSS, and restore for "natural pairs and two like objects" (Vlasto) where dual is attested elsewhere in the MSS, or in SDRIaXI-XIV?