"Fools! who from hence into the notion fall,
That vice or virtue there is none at all."—Pope.
OBS. 8.—Of the words given in the foregoing list as pronominal adjectives, about one third are sometimes used adverbially. They are the following: All, when it means totally; any, for in any degree; else, meaning otherwise; enough, signifying sufficiently; first, for in the first place; last, for in the last place; little, for in a small degree; less, for in a smaller degree; least, for in the smallest degree; much, for in a great degree; more, for in a greater degree; most, for in the greatest degree; no, or none, for in no degree; only, for singly, merely, barely; what, for in what degree, or in how great a degree.[173] To these may perhaps be added the word other, when used as an alternative to somehow; as, "Somehow or other he will be favoured."—Butler's Analogy, p. 89. Here other seems to be put for otherwise; and yet the latter word would not be agreeable in such a sentence. "Somewhere or other," is a kindred phrase equally common, and equally good; or, rather, equally irregular and puzzling. Would it not be better, always to avoid both, by saying, in their stead, "In some way or other,"—"In someplace or other?" In the following examples, however, other seems to be used for otherwise, without such a connection: "How is THAT used, other than as a Conjunction?"—Ainsworth's Gram., p. 88.
"Will it not be receiv'd that they have done 't?
—Who dares receive it other?"—SHAK.: Joh. Dict., w. Other.
OBS. 9.—All and enough, little and much, more and less, sometimes suggest the idea of quantity so abstractly, that we can hardly consider them as adjuncts to any other words; for which reason, they are, in this absolute sense, put down in our dictionaries as nouns. If nouns, however, they are never inflected by cases or numbers; nor do they in general admit the usual adjuncts or definitives of nouns.[174] Thus, we can neither say, the all, for the whole, nor an enough, for a sufficiency. And though a little, the more, and the less, are common phrases, the article does not here prove the following word to be a noun; because the expression may either be elliptical, or have the construction of an adverb: as, "Though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved."—2 Cor., xii, 15. Dr. Johnson seems to suppose that the partitive use of these words makes them nouns; as, "They have much of the poetry of Mecænas, but little of his liberality."—DRYDEN: in Joh. Dict. Upon this principle, however, adjectives innumerable would be made nouns; for we can just as well say, "Some of the poetry,"—"Any of the poetry,"—"The best of Poetry," &c. In all such expressions, the name of the thing divided, is understood in the partitive word; for a part of any thing must needs be of the same species as the whole. Nor was this great grammarian sufficiently attentive to adjuncts, in determining the parts of speech. Nearly all, quite enough, so little, too much, vastly more, rather less, and an abundance of similar phrases, are familiar to every body; in none of which, can any of these words of quantity, however abstract, be very properly reckoned nouns; because the preceding word is an adverb, and adverbs do not relate to any words that are literally nouns. All these may also be used partitively; as, "Nearly all of us."
OBS. 10.—The following are some of Dr. Johnson's "nouns;" which, in connexion with the foregoing remarks, I would submit to the judgement of the reader: "'Then shall we be news-crammed.'—'All the better; we shall be the more remarkable.'"—SHAK.: in Joh. Dict. "All the fitter, Lentulus; our coming is not for salutation; we have business."—BEN JONSON: ib. "'Tis enough for me to have endeavoured the union of my country."—TEMPLE: ib. "Ye take too much upon you."—NUMBERS: ib. "The fate of love is such, that still it sees too little or too much."—DRYDEN: ib. "He thought not much to clothe his enemies."—MILTON: ib. "There remained not so much as one of them."—Ib., Exod., xiv, 28. "We will cut wood out of Lebanon, as much as thou shalt need."—Ib., 2 Chronicles. "The matter of the universe was created before the flood; if any more was created, then there must be as much annihilated to make room for it."—BURNET: ib. "The Lord do so, and much more, to Jonathan."—1 SAMUEL: ib. "They that would have more and more, can never have enough; no, not if a miracle should interpose to gratify their avarice."—L'ESTRANGE: ib. "They gathered some more, some less."—EXODUS: ib. "Thy servant knew nothing of this, less or more."—1 SAMUEL: ib. The first two examples above, Johnson explains thus: "That is, 'Every thing is the better.'—Every thing is the fitter."—Quarto Dict. The propriety of this solution may well be doubted; because the similar phrases, "So much the better,"—"None the fitter," would certainly be perverted, if resolved in the same way: much and none are here, very clearly, adverbs.
OBS. 11.—Whatever disposition may be made of the terms cited above, there are instances in which some of the same words can hardly be any thing else than nouns. Thus all, when it signifies the whole, or every thing, may be reckoned a noun; as, "Our all is at stake, and irretrievably lost, if we fail of success."—Addison. "A torch, snuff and all, goes out in a moment, when dipped in the vapour."—Id. "The first blast of wind laid it flat on the ground; nest, eagles, and all."—L'Estrange.
"Finding, the wretched all they here can have,
But present food, and but a future grave."—Prior.
"And will she yet debase her eyes on me;
On me, whose all not equals Edward's moiety?"—Shak.
"Thou shalt be all in all, and I in thee,
Forever; and in me all whom thou lov'st."—Milton.
OBS. 12.—There are yet some other words, which, by their construction alone, are to be distinguished from the pronominal adjectives. Both, when it stands as a correspondent to and, is reckoned a conjunction; as, "For both he that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one."—Heb., ii, 11. But, in sentences like the following, it seems to be an adjective, referring to the nouns which precede: "Language and manners are both established by the usage of people of fashion."—Amer. Chesterfield, p. 83. So either, corresponding to or, and neither, referring to nor, are conjunctions, and not adjectives. Which and what, with their compounds, whichever or whichsoever, whatever or whatsoever, though sometimes put before nouns as adjectives, are, for the most part, relative or interrogative pronouns. When the noun is used after them, they are adjectives; when it is omitted, they are pronouns: as, "There is a witness of God, which witness gives true judgement."—I. Penington. Here the word witness might be omitted, and which would become a relative pronoun. Dr. Lowth says, "Thy, my, her, our, your, their, are pronominal adjectives."—Gram., p. 23. This I deny; and the reader may see my reasons, in the observations upon the declension of pronouns.
OBS. 13.—The words one and other, besides their primitive uses as adjectives, in which they still remain without inflection, are frequently employed as nouns, or as substitutes for nouns; and, in this substantive or pronominal character, they commonly have the regular declension of nouns, and are reckoned such by some grammarians; though others call them indefinite pronouns, and some, (among whom are Lowth and Comly,) leave them with the pronominal adjectives, even when they are declined in both numbers. Each of them may be preceded by either of the articles; and so general is the signification of the former, that almost any adjective may likewise come before it: as, Any one, some one, such a one, many a one, a new one, an old one, an other one, the same one, the young ones, the little ones, the mighty ones, the wicked one, the Holy One, the Everlasting One. So, like the French on, or l'on, the word one, without any adjective, is now very frequently used as a general or indefinite term for any man, or any person. In this sense, it is sometimes, unquestionably, to be preferred to a personal pronoun applied indefinitely: as, "Pure religion, and undefiled before God and the Father, is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself [better, one's self] unspotted from the world."—James, i, 27. But, as its generality of meaning seems to afford a sort of covering for egotism, some writers are tempted to make too frequent a use of it. Churchill ridicules this practice, by framing, or anonymously citing, the following sentence: "If one did but dare to abide by one's own judgement, one's language would be much more refined; but one fancies one's self obliged to follow, whereever the many choose to lead one."—See Churchill's Gram., p. 229. Here every scholar will concur with the critic in thinking, it would be better to say: "If we did but dare to abide by our own judgement, our language would be much more refined; but we fancy ourselves obliged to follow wherever the many choose to lead us."—See ib.
OBS. 14.—Of the pronominal adjectives the following distribution has been made: "Each, every, and either, are called distributives; because, though they imply all the persons or things that make up a number, they consider them, not as one whole, but as taken separately. This, that, former, latter, both, neither, are termed demonstratives; because they point out precisely the subjects to which they relate. This has these for its plural; that has those. This and that are frequently put in opposition to each other; this, to express what is nearer in place or time; that, what is more remote. All, any, one, other, some, such, are termed indefinite. Another is merely other in the singular, with the indefinite article not kept separate from it.[175] Other, when not joined with a noun, is occasionally used both in the possessive case, and in the plural number: as,
'Teach me to feel an other's wo, to hide the fault I see;
That mercy I to others show, that mercy show to me.'—Pope.
Each other and one another, when used in conjunction, may be termed reciprocals; as they are employed to express a reciprocal action; the former, between two persons or things; the latter, between[176] more than two. The possessive cases of the personal pronouns have been also ranked under the head of pronominal adjectives, and styled possessives; but for this I see no good reason."—Churchill's Gram., p. 76.
OBS. 15.—The reciprocal terms each other and one an other divide, according to some mutual act or interchangeable relation, the persons or things spoken of, and are commonly of the singular number only. Each other, if rightly used, supposes two, and only two, to be acting and acted upon reciprocally; one an other, if not misapplied, supposes more than two, under like circumstances, and has an indefinite reference to all taken distributively: as, "Brutus and Aruns killed each other." That is, Each combatant killed the other. "The disciples were commanded to love one an other, and to be willing to wash one an other's feet." That is, All the disciples were commanded to love mutually; for both terms, one and other, or one disciple and an other disciple, must be here understood as taken indefinitely. The reader will observe, that the two terms thus brought together, if taken substantively or pronominally in parsing, must be represented as being of different cases; or, if we take them adjectively the noun, which is twice to be supplied, will necessarily be so.
OBS. 16.—Misapplications of the foregoing reciprocal terms are very frequent in books, though it is strange that phrases so very common should not be rightly understood. Dr. Webster, among his explanations of the word other, has the following: "Correlative to each, and applicable to any number of individuals."—Octavo Dict. "Other is used as a substitute for a noun, and in this use has the plural number and the sign of the possessive case."—Ib. Now it is plain, that the word other, as a "correlative to each," may be so far "a substitute for a noun" as to take the form of the possessive case singular, and perhaps also the plural; as, "Lock'd in each other's arms they lay." But, that the objective other, in any such relation, can convey a plural idea, or be so loosely applicable—"to any number of individuals," I must here deny. If it were so, there would be occasion, by the foregoing rule, to make it plural in form; as, "The ambitious strive to excel each others." But this is not English. Nor can it be correct to say of more than two, "They all strive to excel each other." Because the explanation must be, "Each strives to excel other;" and such a construction of the word other is not agreeable to modern usage. Each other is therefore not equivalent to one an other, but nearer perhaps to the one the other: as, "The two generals are independent the one of the other."—Voltaire's Charles XII, p. 67. "And these are contrary the one to the other."—Gal., v, 17. "The necessary connexion of the one with the other."—Blair's Rhet., p. 304. The latter phraseology, being definite and formal, is now seldom used, except the terms be separated by a verb or a preposition. It is a literal version of the French l'un l'autre, and in some instances to be preferred to each other; as,
"So fellest foes, whose plots have broke their sleep,
To take the one the other, by some chance."—Shak.
OBS. 17.—The Greek term for the reciprocals each other and one an other, is a certain plural derivative from [Greek: allos], other; and is used in three cases, the genitive, [Greek: allælon], the dative, [Greek: allælois], the accusative, [Greek: allælous]: these being all the cases which the nature of the expression admits; and for all these we commonly use the objective;—that is, we put each or one before the objective other. Now these English terms, taken in a reciprocal sense, seldom, if ever, have any plural form; because the article in one an other admits of none; and each other, when applied to two persons or things, (as it almost always is,) does not require any. I have indeed seen, in some narrative, such an example as this: "The two men were ready to cut each others' throats." But the meaning could not be, that each was ready to cut "others' throats;" and since, between the two, there was but one throat for each to cut, it would doubtless be more correct to say, "each other's throat." So Burns, in touching a gentler passion, has an inaccurate elliptical expression:
"'Tis when a youthful, loving, modest pair,
In others' arms, breathe out the tender tale."
—Cotter's Sat. Night.
He meant, "In each other's arms;" the apostrophe being misplaced, and the metre improperly allowed to exclude a word which the sense requires. Now, as to the plural of each other, although we do not use the objective, and say of many, "They love each others," there appear to be some instances in which the possessive plural, each others', would not be improper; as, "Sixteen ministers, who meet weekly at each other's houses."—Johnson's Life of Swift. Here the singular is wrong, because the governing noun implies a plurality of owners. "The citizens of different states should know each others characters."—Webster's Essays, p. 35. This also is wrong, because no possessive sign is used. Either write, "each others' characters," or say, "one an other's character."
OBS. 18.—One and other are, in many instances, terms relative and partitive, rather than reciprocal; and, in this use, there seems to be an occasional demand for the plural form. In French, two parties are contrasted by les uns—les autres; a mode of expression seldom, if ever imitated in English. Thus: "Il les séparera les uns d'avec les autres." That is, "He shall separate them some from others;"—or, literally, "the ones from the others." Our version is: "He shall separate them one from an other."—Matt., xxv, 32. Beza has it: "Separabit eos alteros ab alteris." The Vulgate: "Separabit eos ab invicem." The Greek: "[Greek: Aphoriei autous ap allælon]." To separate many "one from an other," seems, literally, to leave none of them together; and this is not, "as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats." To express such an idea with perfect propriety, in our language, therefore, we must resort to some other phraseology. In Campbell's version, we read: "And out of them he will separate the good from the bad, as a shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats." Better, perhaps, thus: "And he shall separate them, the righteous from the wicked, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats."
OBS. 19.—Dr. Bullions says, "One and other refer to the singular only."—Eng. Gram., p. 98. Of ones and others he takes no notice; nor is he sufficiently attentive to usage in respect to the roots. If there is any absurdity in giving a plural meaning to the singulars one and other, the following sentences need amendment: "The one preach Christ of contention; but the other, of love."—Philippians, i, 16. Here "the one" is put for "the one class," and "the other" for "the other class;" the ellipsis in the first instance not being a very proper one. "The confusion arises, when the one will put their sickle into the other's harvest."—LESLEY: in Joh. Dict. This may be corrected by saying, "the one party," or, "the one nation," in stead of "the one." "It is clear from Scripture, that Antichrist shall be permitted to work false miracles, and that they shall so counterfeit the true, that it will be hard to discern the one from the other."—Barclay's Works, iii, 93. If in any ease we may adopt the French construction above, "the ones from the others," it will be proper here. Again: "I have seen children at a table, who, whatever was there, never asked for any thing, but contentedly took what was given them: and, at an other place, I have seen others cry for every thing they saw; they must be served out of every dish, and that first too. What made this vast difference, but this: That one was accustomed to have what they called or cried for; the other to go without it?"—Locke, on Education, p. 55. Here, (with were for was,) the terms of contrast ought rather to have been, the ones—the others; the latter—the former; or, the importunate—the modest. "Those nice shades, by which virtues and vices approach each one another."—Murray's Gram., i, p. 350. This expression should be any thing, rather than what it is. Say, "By which virtue and vice approach each other." Or: "By which certain virtues and vices approximate— blend—become difficult of distinction."
OBS. 20.—"Most authors have given the name of pronoun adjectives, ['pronouns adjective,' or 'pronominal adjectives,'] to my, mine; our, ours; thy, thine; your, yours; his, her, hers; their, theirs: perhaps because they are followed by, or refer to, some substantive [expressed or understood after them]. But, were they adjectives, they must either express the quality of their substantive, or limit its extent: adjectives properly so called, do the first; definitive pronouns do the last. All adjectives [that are either singular or plural,] agree with their substantives in number; but I can say, 'They are my books:' my is singular, and books plural; therefore my is not an adjective. Besides, my does not express the quality of the books, but only ascertains the possessor, the same as the genitive or substantive does, to which it is similar. Examples: 'They are my books;'—'They are John's books;' &c."—Alex. Murray's Gram., p. 108.
OBS. 21.—To the class of Participial Adjectives, should be referred all such words as the following: (1.) The simple participles made adjectives by position; as. "A roaring lion,"—"A raging bear,"—"A brawling woman,"—"A flattering mouth,"—"An understanding heart,"—"Burning coals,"—"The hearing ear, and the seeing eye."—Bible. "A troubled fountain,"—"A wounded spirit,"—"An appointed time."—Ib. (2.) Words of a participial appearance, formed from nouns by adding ed; as, "The eve thy sainted mother died."—W. Scott. "What you write of me, would make me more conceited, than what I scribble myself."—Pope. (3.) Participles, or participial adjectives, reversed in sense by the prefix un; as, unaspiring, unavailing, unbelieving, unbattered, uninjured, unbefriended. (4.) Words of a participial form construed elliptically, as if they were nouns; as, "Among the dying and the dead."—"The called of Jesus Christ."—Rom., i, 6. "Dearly beloved, I beseech you."—1 Pet., ii, 11. "The redeemed of the Lord shall return."—Isaiah, li, 11. "They talk, to the grief of thy wounded."—Psalms, lxix, 26: Margin.
OBS. 22.—In the text, Prov., vii, 26, "She hath cast down many wounded," wounded is a participle; because the meaning is, "many men wounded," and not, "many wounded men." Our Participial Adjectives are exceedingly numerous. It is not easy to ascertain how many there are of them; because almost any simple participle may be set before a noun, and thus become an adjective: as,
"Where smiling spring its earliest visit paid,
And parting summer's ling'ring blooms delay'd."—Goldsmith.
OBS. 23.—Compound Adjectives, being formed at pleasure, are both numerous and various. In their formation, however, certain analogies may be traced: (1.) Many of them are formed by joining an adjective to its noun, and giving to the latter the participial termination ed; as, able-bodied, sharp-sighted, left-handed, full-faced, flat-nosed, thick-lipped, cloven-footed, high-heeled. (2.) In some, two nouns are joined, the latter assuming ed, as above; as, bell-shaped, hawk-nosed, eagle-sighted, lion-hearted, web-footed. (3.) In some, the object of an active participle is placed before it; as, money-getting, time-serving, self-consuming, cloud-compelling, fortune-hunting, sleep-disturbing. (4.) Some, embracing numerals, form a series, though it is seldom carried far; as, one-legged, two-legged, three-legged, four-legged. So, one-leaved, two-leaved, three-leaved, four-leaved: or, perhaps better as Webster will have them, one-leafed, two-leafed, &c. But, upon the same principle, short-lived, should be short-lifed, and long-lived, long-lifed. (5.) In some, there is a combination of an adjective and a participle; as, noble-looking, high-sounding, slow-moving, thorough-going, hard-finished, free-born, heavy-laden, only-begotten. (6.) In some, we find an adverb and a participle united; as, ever-living, ill-judging, well-pleasing, far-shooting, forth-issuing, back-sliding, ill-trained, down-trodden, above-mentioned. (7.) Some consist of a noun and a participle which might be reversed with a preposition between them; as, church-going, care-crazed, travel-soiled, blood-bespotted, dew-sprinkled. (8.) A few, and those inelegant, terminate with a preposition; as, unlooked-for, long-looked-for, unthought-of, unheard-of. (9.) Some are phrases of many words, converted into one part of speech by the hyphen; as, "Where is the ever-to-be-honoured Chaucer?"—Wordsworth.
"And, with God-only-knows-how-gotten light,
Informs the nation what is wrong or right."
—Snelling's Gift for Scribblers, p. 49.
OBS. 24.—Nouns derived from compound adjectives, are generally disapproved by good writers; yet we sometimes meet with them: as, hard-heartedness, for hardness of heart, or cruelty; quick-sightedness, for quickness of sight, or perspicacity; worldly-mindedness, for devotion to the world, or love of gain; heavenly-mindedness, for the love of God, or true piety. In speaking of ancestors or descendants, we take the noun, father, mother, son, daughter, or child; prefix the adjective grand; for the second generation; great, for the, third; and then, sometimes, repeat the same, for degrees more remote: as, father, grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great-grandfather. "What would my great-grandmother say, thought I, could she know that thou art to be chopped up for fuel to warm the frigid fingers of her great-great-great-granddaughters!"—T. H. Bayley.
MODIFICATIONS.
Adjectives have, commonly, no modifications but the forms of comparison. Comparison is a variation of the adjective, to express quality in different degrees: as, hard, harder, hardest; soft, softer, softest.
There are three degrees of comparison; the positive, the comparative, and the superlative.
The positive degree is that which is expressed by the adjective in its simple form: as, "An elephant is large; a mouse, small; a lion, fierce, active, bold, and strong."
The comparative degree is that which is more or less than something contrasted with it: as, "A whale is larger than an elephant; a mouse is a much smaller animal than a rat."
The superlative degree is that which is most or least of all included with it: as, "The whale is the largest of the animals that inhabit this globe; the mouse is the smallest of all beasts."—Dr. Johnson.
Those adjectives whose signification does not admit of different degrees, cannot be compared; as, two, second, all, every, immortal, infinite.
Those adjectives which may be varied in sense, but not in form, are compared by means of adverbs; as, fruitful, more fruitful, most fruitful—fruitful, less fruitful, least fruitful.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.—"Some scruple to call the positive a degree of comparison; on the ground, that it does not imply either comparison, or degree. But no quality can exist, without existing in some degree: and, though the positive is very frequently used without reference to any other degree; as it is the standard, with which other degrees of the quality are compared, it is certainly an essential object of the comparison. While these critics allow only two degrees, we might in fact with more propriety say, that there are five: 1, the quality in its standard state, or positive degree; as wise: 2, in a higher state, or the comparative ascending; more wise: 3, in a lower, or the comparative descending; less wise: 4, in the highest state, or superlative ascending; most wise: 5, in the lowest state, or superlative descending; least wise. All grammarians, however, agree about the things themselves, and the forms used to express them; though they differ about the names, by which these forms should be called: and as those names are practically best, which tend least to perplex the learner, I see no good reason here for deviating from what has been established by long custom."—Churchill's Gram., p. 231.
OBS. 2.—Churchill here writes plausibly enough, but it will be seen, both from his explanation, and from the foregoing definitions of the degrees of comparison, that there are but three. The comparative and the superlative may each be distinguishable into the ascending and the descending, as often as we prefer the adverbial form to the regular variation of the adjective itself; but this imposes no necessity of classing and defining them otherwise than simply as the comparative and the superlative. The assumption of two comparatives and two superlatives, is not only contrary to the universal practice of the teachers of grammar; but there is this conclusive argument against it—that the regular method of comparison has no degrees of diminution, and the form which has such degrees, is no inflection of the adjective. If there is any exception, it is in the words, small, smaller, smallest, and little, less, least. But of the smallness or littleness, considered abstractly, these, like all others, are degrees of increase, and not of diminution. Smaller is as completely opposite to less small, as wiser is to less wise. Less itself is a comparative descending, only when it diminishes some other quality: less little, if the phrase were proper, must needs be nearly equivalent to greater or more. Churchill, however, may be quite right in the following remark: "The comparative ascending of an adjective, and the comparative descending of an adjective expressing the opposite quality, are often considered synonymous, by those who do not discriminate nicely between ideas. But less imprudent does not imply precisely the same thing as more prudent; or more brave, the same as less cowardly."—New Gram., p. 231.
OBS. 3.—The definitions which I have given of the three degrees of comparison, are new. In short, I know not whether any other grammarian has ever given what may justly be called a definition, of any one of them. Here, as in most other parts of grammar, loose remarks, ill-written and untrue assertions, have sufficed. The explanations found in many English grammars are the following: "The positive state expresses the quality of an object, without any increase or diminution; as, good, wise, great. The comparative degree increases or lessens the positive in signification; as, wiser, greater, less wise. The superlative degree increases or lessens the positive to the highest or [the] lowest degree; as, wisest, greatest, least wise. The simple word, or positive, becomes [the] comparative by adding r or er; and the superlative by adding st or est, to the end of it. And the adverbs more and most, placed before the adjective, have the same effect; as, wise, more wise, most wise."—Murray's Grammar, 2d Ed., 1796, p. 47. If a man wished to select some striking example of bad writing—of thoughts ill conceived, and not well expressed—he could not do better than take the foregoing: provided his auditors knew enough of grammar to answer the four simple questions here involved; namely, What is the positive degree? What is the comparative degree? What is the superlative degree? How are adjectives regularly compared? To these questions I shall furnish direct answers, which the reader may compare with such as he can derive from the foregoing citation: the last two sentences of which Murray ought to have credited to Dr. Lowth; for he copied them literally, except that he says, "the adverbs more AND most," for the Doctor's phrase, "the adverbs more OR most." See the whole also in Kirkham's Grammar, p. 72; in Ingersoll's, p. 35; in Alger's, p. 21; in Bacon's, p. 18; in Russell's, p. 14; in Hamlin's, p. 22; in J. M. Putnam's, p. 33; in S. Putnam's, p. 20; in R. C. Smith's, p. 51; in Rev. T. Smith's, p. 20.
OBS. 4.—In the five short sentences quoted above, there are more errors, than can possibly be enumerated in ten times the space. For example: (1.) If one should say of a piece of iron, "It grows cold or hot very rapidly," cold and hot could not be in the "positive state," as they define it: because, either the "quality" or the "object," (I know not which,) is represented by them as "without any increase or diminution;" and this would not, in the present case, be true of either; for iron changes in bulk, by a change of temperature. (2.) What, in the first sentence, is erroneously called "the positive state," in the second and the third, is called, "the positive degree;" and this again, in the fourth, is falsely identified with "the simple word." Now, if we suppose the meaning to be, that "the positive state," "the positive degree," or "the simple word," is "without any increase or diminution;" this is expressly contradicted by three sentences out of the five, and implicitly, by one of the others. (3.) Not one of these sentences is true, in the most obvious sense of the words, if in any other; and yet the doctrines they were designed to teach, may have been, in general, correctly gathered from the examples. (4.) The phrase, "positive in signification," is not intelligible in the sense intended, without a comma after positive; and yet, in an armful of different English grammars which contain the passage, I find not one that has a point in that place. (5.) It is not more correct to say, that the comparative or the superlative degree, "increases or lessens the positive," than it would be to aver, that the plural number increases or lessens the singular, or the feminine gender, the masculine. Nor does the superlative mean, what a certain learned Doctor understands by it—namely, "the greatest or least possible degree." If it did, "the thickest parts of his skull," for example, would imply small room for brains; "the thinnest," protect them ill, if there were any. (6.) It is improper to say, "The simple word becomes [the] comparative by adding r or er; and the superlative by adding st or est." The thought is wrong; and nearly all the words are misapplied; as, simple for primitive, adding for assuming, &c. (7.) Nor is it very wise to say, "the adverbs more and most, placed before the adjective, have the same effect:" because it ought to be known, that the effect of the one is very different from that of the other! "The same effect," cannot here be taken for any effect previously described; unless we will have it to be, that these words, more and most, "become comparative by adding r or er; and the superlative by adding st or est, to the end of them:" all of which is grossly absurd. (8.) The repetition of the word degree, in saying, "The superlative degree increases or lessens the positive to the highest or lowest degree," is a disagreeable tautology. Besides, unless it involves the additional error of presenting the same word in different senses, it makes one degree swell or diminish an other to itself; whereas, in the very next sentence, this singular agency is forgotten, and a second equally strange takes its place: "The positive becomes the superlative by adding st or est, to the end of it;" i. e., to the end of itself. Nothing can be more ungrammatical, than is much of the language by which grammar itself is now professedly taught!
OBS. 5.—It has been almost universally assumed by grammarians, that the positive degree is the only standard to which the other degrees can refer; though many seem to think, that the superlative always implies or includes the comparative, and is consequently inapplicable when only two things are spoken of. Neither of these positions is involved in any of the definitions which I have given above. The reader may think what he will about these points, after observing the several ways in which each form may be used. In the phrases, "greater than Solomon,"—"more than a bushel,"—"later than one o'clock," it is not immediately obvious that the positives great, much, and late, are the real terms of contrast. And how is it in the Latin phrases, "Dulcior melle, sweeter than honey,"—"Præstantior auro, better than gold?" These authors will resolve all such phrases thus: "greater, than Solomon was great,"—"more, than a bushel is much," &c. As the conjunction than never governs the objective case, it seems necessary to suppose an ellipsis of some verb after the noun which follows it as above; and possibly the foregoing solution, uncouth as it seems, may, for the English idiom, be the true one: as, "My Father is greater than I."—John, xiv, 28. That is, "My Father is greater than I am;"—or, perhaps, "than I am great." But if it appear that some degree of the same quality must always be contrasted with the comparative, there is still room to question whether this degree must always be that which we call the positive. Cicero, in exile, wrote to his wife: "Ego autem hoc miserior sum, quam tu, quæ es miserrima, quod ipsa calamitas communis est utriusque nostrùm, sed culpa mea propria est."—Epist. ad Fam., xiv, 3. "But in this I am more wretched, than thou, who art most wretched, that the calamity itself is common to us both, but the fault is all my own."
OBS. 6.—In my Institutes and First Lines of English Grammar, I used the following brief definitions: "The comparative degree is that which exceeds the positive; as, harder, softer, better." "The superlative degree is that which is not exceeded; as, hardest, softest, best." And it is rather for the sake of suggesting to the learner the peculiar application of each of these degrees, than from any decided dissatisfaction with these expressions, that I now present others. The first, however, proceeds upon the common supposition, that the comparative degree of a quality, ascribed to any object, must needs be contrasted with the positive in some other, or with the positive in the same at an other time. This idea may be plausibly maintained, though it is certain that the positive term referred to, is seldom, if ever, allowed to appear. Besides, the comparative or the superlative may appear, and in such a manner as to be, or seem to be, in the point of contrast. Thus: "Objects near our view are apt to be thought greater than those of a larger size, that are more remote."—Locke's Essay, p. 186. Upon the principle above, the explanation here must be, that the meaning is—"greater than those of a larger size are thought great." "The poor man that loveth Christ, is richer than the richest man in the world, that hates him."—Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, p. 86. This must be "richer than the richest man is rich." The riches contemplated here, are of different sorts; and the comparative or the superlative of one sort, may be exceeded by either of these degrees of an other sort, though the same epithet be used for both. So in the following instances: "He that is higher than the highest regardeth; and there be higher than they."—Eccl., v, 8. That is, "He that is higher than the highest earthly dignitaries, regardeth; and there are higher authorities than these." "Fairer than aught imagined else fairest."—Pollok. "Sadder than saddest night."—Byron. It is evident that the superlative degree is not, in general, that which cannot be exceeded, but that which, in the actual state of the things included, "is not exceeded." Again, as soon as any given comparative or superlative is, by a further elevation or intension of the quality, surpassed and exceeded, that particular degree, whatever it was, becomes merely positive; for the positive degree of a quality, though it commonly includes the very lowest measure, and is understood to exceed nothing, may at any time equal the very highest. There is no paradox in all this, which is not also in the following simple examples: "Easier, indeed, I was, but far from easy."—Cowper's Life, p. 50.
"Who canst the wisest wiser make,
And babes as wise as they."—Cowper's Poems.
OBS. 7.—The relative nature of these degrees deserves to be further illustrated. (1.) It is plain, that the greatest degree of a quality in one thing, may be less than the least in an other; and, consequently, that the least degree in one thing, may be greater than the greatest in an other. Thus, the heaviest wood is less heavy than the lightest of the metals; and the least valuable of the metals is perhaps of more value than the choicest wood. (2.) The comparative degree may increase upon itself, and be repeated to show the gradation. Thus, a man may ascend into the air with a balloon, and rise higher, and higher, and higher, and higher, till he is out of sight. This is no uncommon form of expression, and the intension is from comparative to comparative. (3.) If a ladder be set up for use, one of its rounds will be the highest, and one other will be the lowest, or least high. And as that which is highest, is higher than all the rest, so every one will be higher than all below it. The higher rounds, if spoken of generally, and without definite contrast, will be those in the upper half; the lower rounds, referred to in like manner, will be those in the lower half, or those not far from the ground. The highest rounds, or the lowest, if we indulge such latitude of speech, will be those near the top or the bottom; there being, absolutely, or in strictness of language, but one of each. (4.) If the highest round be removed, or left uncounted, the next becomes the highest, though not so high as the former. For every one is the highest of the number which it completes. All admit this, till we come to three. And, as the third is the highest of the three, I see not why the second is not properly the highest of the two. Yet nearly all our grammarians condemn this phrase, and prefer "the higher of the two." But can they give a reason for their preference? That the comparative degree is implied between the positive and the superlative, so that there must needs be three terms before the latter is applicable, is a doctrine which I deny. And if the second is the higher of the two, because it is higher than the first; is it not also the highest of the two, because it completes the number? (5.) It is to be observed, too, that as our ordinal numeral first, denoting the one which begins a series, and having reference of course to more, is an adjective of the superlative degree, equivalent to foremost, of which it is perhaps a contraction; so last likewise, though no numeral, is a superlative also. (6.) These, like other superlatives, admit of a looser application, and may possibly include more than one thing at the beginning or at the end of a series: as, "The last years of man are often helpless, like the first." (7.) With undoubted propriety, we may speak of the first two, the last two, the first three, the last three, &c.; but to say, the two first, the two last, &c., with this meaning, is obviously and needlessly inaccurate. "The two first men in the nation," may, I admit, be good English; but it can properly be meant only of the two most eminent. In specifying any part of a series, we ought rather to place the cardinal number after the ordinal. (8.) Many of the foregoing positions apply generally, to almost all adjectives that are susceptible of comparison. Thus, it is a common saying, "Take the best first, and all will be best." That is, remove that degree which is now superlative, and the epithet will descend to an other, "the next best."
OBS. 8.—It is a common assumption, maintained by almost all our grammarians, that the degrees which add to the adjective the terminations er and est, as well as those which are expressed by more and most, indicate an increase, or heightening, of the quality expressed by the positive. If such must needs be their import, it is certainly very improper, to apply them, as many do, to what can be only an approximation to the positive. Thus Dr. Blair: "Nothing that belongs to human nature, is more universal than the relish of beauty of one kind or other."—Lectures, p. 16. "In architecture, the Grecian models were long esteemed the most perfect."—Ib., p. 20. Again: In his reprehension of Capernaum, the Saviour said, "It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom, in the day of judgement, than for thee."—Matt., xi, 24. Now, although [Greek: anektoteron], more tolerable, is in itself a good comparative, who would dare infer from this text, that in the day of judgement Capernaum shall fare tolerably, and Sodom, still better? There is much reason to think, that the essential nature of these grammatical degrees has not been well understood by those who have heretofore pretended to explain them. If we except those few approximations to sensible qualities, which are signified by such words as whitish, greenish, &c., there will be found no actual measure, or inherent degree of any quality, to which the simple form of the adjective is not applicable; or which, by the help of intensive adverbs of a positive character, it may not be made to express; and that, too, without becoming either comparative or superlative, in the technical sense of those terms. Thus very white, exceedingly white, perfectly white, are terms quite as significant as whiter and whitest, if not more so. Some grammarians, observing this, and knowing that the Romans often used their superlative in a sense merely intensive, as altissimus for very high, have needlessly divided our English superlative into two, "the definite, and the indefinite;" giving the latter name to that degree which we mark by the adverb very, and the former to that which alone is properly called the superlative. Churchill does this: while, (as we have seen above,) in naming the degrees, he pretends to prefer "what has been established by long custom."—New Gram., p. 231. By a strange oversight also, he failed to notice, that this doctrine interferes with his scheme of five degrees, and would clearly furnish him with six: to which if he had chosen to add the "imperfect degree" of Dr. Webster, (as whitish, greenish, &c.,) which is recognized by Johnson, Murray, and others, he might have had seven. But I hope my readers will by-and-by believe there is no need of more than three.
OBS. 9.—The true nature of the Comparative degree is this: it denotes either some excess or some relative deficiency of the quality, when one thing or party is compared with an other, in respect to what is in both: as, "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."—1 Cor., i, 25. "Few languages are, in fact, more copious than the English."—Blair's Rhet., p. 87. "Our style is less compact than that of the ancients."—Ib., p. 88. "They are counted to him less than nothing and vanity."—Isaiah, xl, 17. As the comparatives in a long series are necessarily many, and some of them higher than others, it may be asked, "How can the comparative degree, in this case, be merely 'that which exceeds the positive?'" Or, as our common grammarians prompt me here to say, "May not the comparative degree increase or lessen the comparative, in signification?" The latter form of the question they may answer for themselves; remembering that the comparative may advance from the comparative, step by step, from the second article in the series to the utmost. Thus, three is a higher or greater number than two; but four is higher than three; five, than four; and so on, ad infinitum. My own form of the question I answer thus: "The highest of the higher is not higher than the rest are higher, but simply higher than they are high."
OBS. 10.—The true nature of the Superlative degree is this: it denotes, in a quality, some extreme or unsurpassed extent. It may be used either absolutely, as being without bounds; or relatively, as being confined within any limits we choose to give it. It is equally applicable to that which is naturally unsurpassable, and to that which stands within the narrowest limits of comparison. The heaviest of three feathers would scarcely be thought a heavy thing, and yet the expression is proper; because the weight, whatever it is, is relatively the greatest. The youngest of three persons, may not be very young; nor need we suppose the oldest in a whole college to have arrived at the greatest conceivable age. What then shall be thought of the explanations which our grammarians have given of this degree of comparison? That of Murray I have already criticised. It is ascribed to him, not upon the supposition that he invented it; but because common sense continues to give place to the authority of his name in support of it. Comly, Russell, Alger, Ingersoll, Greenleaf, Fisk, Merchant, Kirkham, T. Smith, R. C. Smith, Hall, Hiley, and many others, have copied it into their grammars, as being better than any definition they could devise. Murray himself unquestionably took it from some obscure pedagogue among the old grammarians. Buchanan, who long preceded him, has nearly the same words: "The Superlative increases or diminishes the Positive in Signification, to the highest or [the] lowest Degree of all."—English Syntax, p. 28. If this is to be taken for a grammatical definition, what definition shall grammar itself bear?
OBS. 11.—Let us see whether our later authors have done better. "The superlative expresses a quality in the greatest or [the] least possible degree; as, wisest, coldest, least wise."—Webster's Old Gram., p. 13. In his later speculations, this author conceives that the termination ish forms the first degree of comparison; as, "Imperfect, dankish," Pos. dank, Comp. danker, Superl. dankest. "There are therefore four degrees of comparison."—Webster's Philosophical Gram. p. 65. "The fourth denotes the utmost or [the] least degree of a quality; as, bravest, wisest, poorest, smallest. This is called the superlative degree."—Ib.; also his Improved Gram., 1831, p. 47. "This degree is called the Superlative degree, from its raising the amount of the quality above that of all others."—Webber's Gram., 1832, p. 26. It is not easy to quote, from any source, a worse sentence than this; if, indeed, so strange a jumble of words can be called a sentence. "From its raising the amount," is in itself a vicious and untranslatable phrase, here put for "because it raises the amount;" and who can conceive of the superlative degree, as "raising the amount of the quality above that of all other qualities?" Or, if it be supposed to mean, "above the amount of all other degrees," what is this amount? Is it that of one and one, the positive and the comparative added numerically? or is it the sum of all the quantities which these may indicate? Perhaps the author meant, "above the amount of all other amounts." If none of these absurdities is here taught, nothing is taught, and the words are nonsense. Again: "The superlative degree increases or diminishes the positive to the highest or [the] lowest degree of which it is susceptible."—Bucke's Classical Gram., p. 49. "The superlative degree is generally formed by adding st or est to the positive; and denotes the greatest excess."—Nutting's Gram., p. 33. "The Superlative increases or diminishes the Signification of the Positive or Adjective, to a very high or a very low Degree."—British Gram., p. 97. What excess of skill, or what very high degree of acuteness, have the brightest and best of these grammarians exhibited? There must be some, if their definitions are true.
OBS. 12.—The common assertion of the grammarians, that the superlative degree is not applicable to two objects,[177] is not only unsupported by any reason in the nature of things, but it is contradicted in practice by almost every man who affirms it. Thus Maunder: "When only two persons or things are spoken of comparatively, to use the superlative is improper: as, 'Deborah, my dear, give those two boys a lump of sugar each; and let Dick's be the largest, because he spoke first.' This," says the critic, "should have been 'larger.'"—Maunder's Gram., p. 4. It is true, the comparative might here have been used; but the superlative is clearer, and more agreeable to custom. And how can "largest" be wrong, if "first" is right? "Let Dick's be the larger, because he spoke sooner," borders too much upon a different idea, that of proportion; as when we say, "The sooner the better,"—"The more the merrier." So Blair: "When only two things are compared, the comparative degree should be used, and not the superlative."—Practical Gram., p. 81. "A Trochee has the first syllable accented, and the last unaccented."—Ib., p. 118. "An Iambus has the first syllable unaccented, and the last accented."—Ibid. These two examples are found also in Jamieson's Rhetoric, p. 305; Murray's Gram., p. 253; Kirkham's, 219; Bullions's, 169; Guy's, 120; Merchant's, 166. So Hiley: "When two persons or things are compared, the comparative degree must be employed. When three or more persons or things are compared, the superlative must be used."—Treatise on English Gram., p. 78. Contradiction in practice: "Thomas is wiser than his brothers."—Ib., p. 79. Are not "three or more persons" here compared by "the comparative" wiser? "In an Iambus the first syllable is unaccented."—Ib., p. 123. An iambus has but two syllables; and this author expressly teaches that "first" is "superlative."—Ib., p. 21. So Sanborn: "The positive degree denotes the simple form of an adjective without any variation of meaning. The comparative degree increases or lessens the meaning of the positive, and denotes a comparison between two persons or things. The superlative degree increases or lessens the positive to the greatest extent, and denotes a comparison between more than two persons or things."—Analytical Gram., p. 30 and p. 86. These pretended definitions of the degrees of comparison embrace not only the absurdities which I have already censured in those of our common grammars, but several new ones peculiar to this author. Of the inconsistency of his doctrine and practice, take the following examples: "Which of two bodies, that move with the same velocity, will exercise the greatest power?"—Ib., p. 93; and again, p. 203, "'I was offered a dollar;'—'A dollar was offered (to) me.' The first form should always be avoided."—Ib., p. 127. "Nouns in apposition generally annex the sign of the possessive case to the last; as, 'For David my servant's sake.'—'John the Baptist's head.' Bible."—Ib., p. 197.
OBS. 13.—So Murray: "We commonly say, 'This is the weaker of the two;' or, 'The weakest of the two;'[178] but the former is the regular mode of expression, because there are only two things compared."—Octavo Gram., i, 167. What then of the following example: "Which of those two persons has most distinguished himself?"—Ib., Key, ii, 187. Again, in treating of the adjectives this and that, the same hand writes thus: "This refers to the nearest person or thing, and that to the most distant: as, 'This man is more intelligent than that.' This indicates the latter, or last mentioned; that, the former, or first mentioned: as, 'Both wealth and poverty are temptations; that tends to excite pride, this, discontent.'"—Murray's Gram., i, 56. In the former part of this example, the superlative is twice applied where only two things are spoken of; and, in the latter, it is twice made equivalent to the comparative, with a like reference. The following example shows the same equivalence: "This refers to the last mentioned or nearer thing, that to the first mentioned or more distant thing."—Webber's Gram., p. 31. So Churchill: "The superlative should not be used, when only two persons or things are compared."—New Gram., p. 80. "In the first of these two sentences."—Ib., p. 162; Lowth, p. 120. According to the rule, it should have been, "In the former of these two sentences;" but this would be here ambiguous, because former might mean maker. "When our sentence consists of two members, the longest should, generally, be the concluding one."—Blair's Rhet., p. 117: and Jamieson's, p. 99. "The shortest member being placed first, we carry it more readily in our memory as we proceed to the second."—Ib., & Ib. "Pray consider us, in this respect, as the weakest sex."—Spect., No. 533. In this last sentence, the comparative, weaker, would perhaps have been better; because, not an absolute, but merely a comparative weakness is meant. So Latham and Child: "It is better, in speaking of only two objects, to use the comparative degree rather than the superlative, even, where we use the article the. This is the better of the two, is preferable to this is the best of the two."—Elementary Gram., p. 155. Such is their rule; but very soon they forget it, and write thus: "In this case the relative refers to the last of the two."—Ib., p. 163.
OBS. 14.—Hyperboles are very commonly expressed by comparatives or superlatives; as, "My little finger shall be thicker than my father's loins."—1 Kings, xii, 10. "Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given."—Ephesians, iii, 8. Sometimes, in thus heightening or lowering the object of his conception, the writer falls into a catachresis, solecism, or abuse of the grammatical degrees; as, "Mustard-seed—which is less than all the seeds that be in the earth."—Mark, iv, 31. This expression is objectionable, because mustard-seed is a seed, and cannot be less than itself; though that which is here spoken of, may perhaps have been "the least of all seeds:" and it is the same Greek phrase, that is thus rendered in Matt, xiii, 32. Murray has inserted in his Exercises, among "unintelligible and inconsistent words and phrases," the following example from Milton:
"And, in the lowest deep, a lower deep
Still threat'ning to devour me, opens wide."—Exercises, p. 122.
For this supposed inconsistency, ho proposes in his Key the following amendment:
"And, in the lower deep, another deep
Still threat'ning to devour me, opens wide."—Key, p. 254.
But, in an other part of his book, he copies from Dr. Blair the same passage, with commendation: saying, "The following sentiments of Satan in Milton, as strongly as they are described, contain nothing but what is natural and proper:
'Me miserable! which way shall I fly
Infinite wrath, and infinite despair?
Which way I fly is Hell; myself am Hell;
And in the lowest depth, a lower deep,
Still threat'ning to devour me, opens wide,
To which the Hell I suffer seems a Heaven.' P. Lost, B. iv, l. 73."
Blair's Lectures, p. 153; Murray's Grammar, p. 352.
OBS. 15.—Milton's word, in the fourth line above, is deep, and not depth, as these authors here give it: nor was it very polite in them, to use a phraseology which comes so near to saying, the devil was in the poet. Alas for grammar! accuracy in its teachers has become the most rare of all qualifications. As for Murray's correction above, I see not how it can please any one who chooses to think Hell a place of great depth. A descent into his "lower deep" and "other deep," might be a plunge less horrible than two or three successive slides in one of our western caverns! But Milton supposes the arch-fiend might descend to the lowest imaginable depth of Hell, and there be liable to a still further fall of more tremendous extent. Fall whither? Into the horrid and inconceivable profundity of the bottomless pit! What signifies it, to object to his language as "unintelligible" if it conveys his idea better than any other could? In no human conception of what is infinite, can there be any real exaggeration. To amplify beyond the truth, is here impossible. Nor is there any superlation which can fix a limit to the idea of more and more in infinitude. Whatever literal absurdity there may be in it, the duplication seems greatly to augment what was even our greatest conception of the thing. Homer, with a like figure, though expressed in the positive degree, makes Jupiter threaten any rebel god, that he shall be thrown down from Olympus, to suffer the burning pains of the Tartarean gulf; not in the centre, but,
"As deep beneath th' infernal centre hurl'd,
As from that centre to th' ethereal world."
—Pope's Iliad, B. viii, l. 19.
REGULAR COMPARISON.
Adjectives are regularly compared, when the comparative degree is expressed by adding er, and the superlative, by adding est to them: as, Pos., great, Comp., greater, Superl., greatest; Pos., mild, Comp., milder, Superl., mildest.
In the variation of adjectives, final consonants are doubled, final e is omitted, and final y is changed to i, agreeably to the rules for spelling: as, hot, hotter, hottest; wide, wider, widest; happy, happier, happiest.
The regular method of comparison belongs almost exclusively to monosyllables, with dissyllables ending in w or y, and such others as receive it and still have but one syllable after the accent: as, fierce, fiercer, fiercest; narrow, narrower, narrowest; gloomy, gloomier, gloomiest; serene, serener, serenest; noble, nobler, noblest; gentle, gentler, gentlest.
COMPARISON BY ADVERBS.
The two degrees of superiority may also be expressed with precisely the same import as above, by prefixing to the adjective the adverbs more and most: as, wise, more wise, most wise; famous, more famous, most famous; amiable, more amiable, most amiable.
The degrees of inferiority are expressed, in like manner, by the adverbs less and least: as, wise, less wise, least wise; famous, less famous, least famous; amiable, less amiable, least amiable. The regular method of comparison has, properly speaking, no degrees of this kind.
Nearly all adjectives that admit of different degrees, may be compared by means of the adverbs; but, for short words, the regular method is generally preferable: as, quick, quicker, quickest; rather than, quick, more quick, most quick.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.—The genius of our language is particularly averse to the lengthening of long words by additional syllables; and, in the comparison of adjectives, er and est always add a syllable to the word, except it end in le after a mute. Thus, free, freer, freest, increases syllabically; but ample, ampler, amplest, does not. Whether any particular adjective admits of comparison or not, is a matter of reasoning from the sense of the term; by which method it shall be compared, is in some degree a matter of taste; though custom has decided that long words shall not be inflected, and for the shorter, there is generally an obvious bias in favour of one form rather than the other. Dr. Johnson says, "The comparison of adjectives is very uncertain; and being much regulated by commodiousness of utterance, or agreeableness of sound, is not easily reduced to rules. Monosyllables are commonly compared. Polysyllables, or words of more than two syllables, are seldom compared otherwise than by more and most. Dissyllables are seldom compared if they terminate in full, less, ing, ous, ed, id, at, ent, ain, or ive."—Gram. of the English Tongue, p. 6. "When the positive contains but one syllable, the degrees are usually formed by adding er or est. When the positive contains two syllables, it is matter of taste which method you shall use in forming the degrees. The ear is, in this case, the best guide. But, when the positive contains more than two syllables, the degrees must be formed by the use of more and most. We may say, tenderer and tenderest, pleasanter and pleasantest, prettier and prettiest; but who could endure delicater and delicatest?"—Cobbett's E. Gram., p. 81. Quiet, bitter, clever, sober, and perhaps some others like them, are still regularly compared; but such words as secretest, famousest, virtuousest, powerfullest, which were used by Milton, have gone out of fashion. The following, though not very commonly used, are perhaps allowable. "Yet these are the two commonest occupations of mankind."—Philological Museum, i, 431. "Their pleasantest walks throughout life must be guarded by armed men."—Ib., i, 437. "Franklin possessed the rare talent of drawing useful lessons from the commonest occurrences."—Murray's Sequel, p. 323. "Unbidden guests are often welcomest when they are gone."—SHAK.: in Joh. Dict.
"There was a lad, th' unluckiest of his crew,
Was still contriving something bad, but new."—KING: ib.
OBS. 2.—I make a distinction between the regular comparison by er and est, and the comparison by adverbs; because, in a grammatical point of view, these two methods are totally different: the meaning, though the same, being expressed in the one case, by an inflection of the adjective; and in the other, by a phrase consisting of two different parts of speech. If the placing of an adverb before an adjective is to be called a grammatical modification or variation of the latter word, we shall have many other degrees than those which are enumerated above. The words may with much more propriety be parsed separately, the degree being ascribed to the adverb—or, if you please, to both words, for both are varied in sense by the inflection of the former. The degrees in which qualities may exist in nature, are infinitely various; but the only degrees with which the grammarian is concerned, are those which our variation of the adjective or adverb enables us to express—including, as of course we must, the state or sense of the primitive word, as one. The reasoning which would make the positive degree to be no degree, would also make the nominative case, or the casus rectus of the Latins, to be no case.
OBS. 3.—Whenever the adjective itself denotes these degrees, and is duly varied in form to express them, they properly belong to it; as, worthy, worthier, worthiest. (Though no apology can be made for the frequent error of confounding the degree of a quality, with the verbal sign which expresses it.) If an adverb is employed for this purpose, that also is compared, and the two degrees thus formed or expressed, are properly its own; as, worthy, more worthy, most worthy. But these same degrees may be yet otherwise expressed; as, worthy, in a higher degree worthy, in the highest degree worthy. Here also the adjective worthy is virtually compared, as before; but only the adjective high is grammatically modified. Again, we may form three degrees with several adverbs to each, thus: Pos., very truly worthy; Comp., much more truly worthy; Sup., much the most truly worthy. There are also other adverbs, which, though not varied in themselves like much, more, most, may nevertheless have nearly the same effect upon the adjective; as, worthy, comparatively worthy, superlatively worthy. I make these remarks, because many grammarians have erroneously parsed the adverbs more and most, less and least, as parts of the adjective.
OBS. 4.—Harris, in his Hermes, or Philosophical Inquiry concerning Universal Grammar, has very unceremoniously pronounced the doctrine of three degrees of comparison, to be absurd; and the author of the British Grammar, as he emotes the whole passage without offering any defence of that doctrine, seems to second the allegation. "Mr. Harris observes, that, 'There cannot well be more than two degrees; one to denote simple excess, and one to denote superlative. Were we indeed to introduce more degrees, we ought perhaps to introduce infinite, which is absurd. For why stop at a limited number, when in all subjects, susceptible of intension, the intermediate excesses are in a manner infinite? There are infinite degrees of more white between the first simple white and the superlative whitest; the same may be said of more great, more strong, more minute, &c. The doctrine of grammarians about three such degrees, which they call the Positive, the Comparative, and the Superlative, must needs be absurd; both because in their Positive there is no comparison at all, and because their Superlative is a Comparative as much as their Comparative itself.' Hermes, p. 197."—Brit. Gram., p. 98. This objection is rashly urged. No comparison can be imagined without bringing together as many as two terms, and if the positive is one of these, it is a degree of comparison; though neither this nor the superlative is, for that reason, "a Comparative." Why we stop at three degrees, I have already shown: we have three forms, and only three.
OBS. 5.—"The termination ish may be accounted in some sort a degree of comparison, by which the signification is diminished below the positive, as black, blackish, or tending to blackness; salt, saltish, or having a little taste of salt:[179] they therefore admit of no comparison. This termination is seldom added but to words expressing sensible qualities, nor often to words of above one syllable, and is scarcely used in the solemn or sublime style."—Dr. Johnson's Gram. "The first [degree] denotes a slight degree of the quality, and is expressed by the termination ish; as, reddish, brownish, yellowish. This may be denominated the imperfect degree of the attribute."—Dr. Webster's Improved Gram., p. 47. I doubt the correctness of the view taken above by Johnson, and dissent entirely from Webster, about his "first degree of comparison." Of adjectives in ish we have perhaps a hundred; but nine out of ten of them are derived clearly from nouns, as, boyish, girlish; and who can prove that blackish, saltish, reddish, brownish, and yellowish, are not also from the nouns, black, salt, red, brown, and yellow? or that "a more reddish tinge,"—"a more saltish taste," are not correct phrases? There is, I am persuaded, no good reason for noticing this termination as constituting a degree of comparison. All "double comparisons" are said to be ungrammatical; but, if ish forms a degree, it is such a degree as may be compared again: as,
"And seem more learnedish than those
That at a greater charge compose."—Butler.
OBS. 6.—Among the degrees of comparison, some have enumerated that of equality; as when we say, "It is as sweet as honey." Here is indeed a comparison, but it is altogether in the positive degree, and needs no other name. This again refutes Harris; who says, that in the positive there is no comparison at all. But further: it is plain, that in this degree there may be comparisons of inequality also; as, "Molasses is not so sweet as honey."—"Civility is not so slight a matter as it is commonly thought."—Art of Thinking, p. 92. Nay, such comparisons may equal any superlative. Thus it is said, I think, in the Life of Robert Hall: "Probably no human being ever before suffered so much bodily pain." What a preëminence is here! and yet the form of the adjective is only that of the positive degree. "Nothing so uncertain as general reputation."—Art of Thinking, p. 50. "Nothing so nauseous as undistinguishing civility."—Ib., p. 88. These, likewise, would be strong expressions, if they were correct English. But, to my apprehension, every such comparison of equality involves a solecism, when, as it here happens, the former term includes the latter. The word nothing is a general negative, and reputation is a particular affirmative. The comparison of equality between them, is therefore certainly improper: because nothing cannot be equal to something; and, reputation being something, and of course equal to itself, the proposition is evidently untrue. It ought to be, "Nothing is more uncertain than general reputation." This is the same as to say, "General reputation is as uncertain as any thing that can be named." Or else the former term should exempt the latter; as. "Nothing else"—or, "No other thing, is so uncertain as" this popular honour, public esteem, or "general reputation." And so of all similar examples.