I'm reading about languages (currently Greek) and it says that Ancient Greek had well here, let me put it this way. You know how words can be singular or pural. (car, cars) lets call them modes. What would dual mode be?
Singular: One of [whatever the noun or pronoun represents]. Dual: Two of them. Plural: More than two of them. Many non-Indo-European languages still have this singular/dual/plural paradigm. Nouns have three different forms. But I think it's extinct in the modern Indo-European languages. We all have just singular/plural, so for us plural means "more than one." Our nouns have only two forms: Dog/dogs, man/men. Chinese has no inflections at all, so nouns do not indicate number; there is no singular and plural. When you say dog, person, day, idea, there is no indication as to how many of them you mean. Many times it doesn't matter: "Coyotes eat rabbits," the number is irrelevant. Other times it's obvious from context: "Son ride motorcycle," everyone knows you have only one son and everyone knows you can only ride one motorcycle at a time. But when it's important you just say the number: "All coyote, several rabbit, three son, one motorcycle."
Sanskrit does have single, dual and mutiple use of nouns and pronouns. In fact they be presented in 81 different ways.
Linguists generally don't regard Sanskrit as a living language. It's been preserved for various reasons, the way Latin and Old Church Slavonic have been preserved, and a great many people are fluent in it, just as a great many people are fluent in Latin and Old Church Slavonic. But it's not a vernacular: people don't use it in everyday family life, it's not evolving new words and figures of speech. Of course not all linguists agree, especially Indians. Hebrew was a dead language, used only in the liturgy, until the last century. Then it was revived and made the national language of Israel. Today it has slang and neologisms.
Who cares what westren influenced linguists say about Sanskrit? In fact for most, Sanskrit is a locked book. They do not have even a working knowledge, but pontificate on the basis of translations, which can be mistakes, mischiefs or outright insidious.
