THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE.
s. 310. The proper preliminary to the study of the comparative and
quasi-comparative forms in English is the history of the inflection or
inflections by which they are expressed. There is no part of our grammar
where it is more necessary to extend our view beyond the common limit of
the Gothic stock of languages, than here.
In the Sanskrit language the signs of the comparative degree are two:--1.
_-tara_, as _punya_=_pure_; _punya-tara_=_purer_; 2. _-[^i]yas_, as
_k['s]ipra_=_swift_; _k['s][^e]p[^i]yas_=_swifter_. Of these the first is
the most in use.
The same forms occur in the Zend; as _husko_=_dry_;
_husk[^o]-tara_=_drier_; _-[^i]yas_, however, is changed into _-is_.
In the classical languages we have the same forms. 1. in _uter_, _neuter_,
_alter_, [Greek: poteros], [Greek: leptoteros]. 2. In the adverb _magis_,
Lat. In Bohemian and Polish, _-ssj_ and _-szy_ correspond with the Sanskrit
forms _-[^i]yas_.
Thus we collect, that, expressive of the comparative degree, there are two
parallel forms; _viz._, the form in _tr_, and the form in _s_; of which one
is the most in use in one language, and the other in another.
s. 311. Before we consider the Gothic forms of the comparative, it may be
advisable to note two changes to which it is liable. 1. The change of _s_
into _r_; the Latin word _meliorem_ being supposed to have been originally
_meliosem_, and the _s_ in _nigrius_, _firmius_, &c., being considered not
so much the sign of the neuter gender as the old comparative _s_ in its
oldest form. 2. The ejection of _t_, as in the Latin words _inferus_,
_superus_, compared with the Greek [Greek: leptoteros] (_leptoteros_).
{264}
s. 312. Now, of the two parallel forms, the Gothic one was the form _s_;
the words _other_ and _whether_ only preserving the form _tr_. And here
comes the application of the remarks that have just gone before. The vast
majority of our comparatives end in _r_, and so seem to come from _tr_
rather than from _s_. This, however, is not the case. The _r_ in words like
_sweeter_ is derived, not from _tar_--_t_, but from _s_, changed into _r_.
In Moeso-Gothic the comparative ended in _s_ (_z_); in Old High German the
_s_ has become _r_: Moeso-Gothic _aldiza_, _batiza_, _sutiza_; Old High
German, _altiro_, _betsiro_, _suatsiro_; English, _older_, _better_,
_sweeter_.
The importance of a knowledge of the form in _s_ is appreciated when we
learn that, even in the present English, there are vestiges of it.
s. 313. _Comparison of adverbs._--_The sun shines bright._--Herein the word
_bright_ means _brightly_; and although the use of the latter word would
have been the more elegant, the expression is not ungrammatical; the word
_bright_ being looked upon as an adjectival adverb.
_The sun shines to-day brighter than it did yesterday, and to-morrow it
will shine brightest._--Here also the sense is adverbial; from whence we
get the fact, that adverbs take degrees of comparison.
Now let the root _mag-_, as in _magnus_, [Greek: megas], and _mikil_
(Norse), give the idea of greatness. In the Latin language we have from it
two comparative forms: 1. the adjectival comparative _major_=_greater_; 2.
the adverbial comparative _magis_=_more_ (_plus_). The same takes place in
Moeso-Gothic: _maiza_ means _greater_, and is adjectival; _mais_ means
_more_, and is adverbial. The Anglo-Saxon forms are more instructive still;
_e.g._, _thaes the m[^a]_=_all the more_, _thaes the bet_=_all the better_,
have a comparative sense, but not a comparative form, the sign _r_ being
absent. Now, compared with _major_, and subject to the remarks that have
gone before, the Latin _magis_ is the older form. With _m[^a]_ and _bet_,
compared with _more_ and _better_, this may or may not be the case. _M[^a]_
and _bet_ may each be one of two forms; 1. a positive used in a comparative
sense; 2. a true comparative, which has lost {265} its termination. The
present section has been written not for the sake of exhausting the
subject, but to show that in the comparative degree there were often two
forms; of which one, the adverbial, was either more antiquated, or more
imperfect than the other: a fact bearing upon some of the forthcoming
trains of etymological reasoning.
s. 314. _Change of vowel._--By reference to Rask's Grammar, s. 128, it may
be seen that in the Anglo-Saxon there were, for the comparative and
superlative degrees, two forms; _viz._ _-or_ and _-re_, and _-ost_ and
_-este_, respectively.
By reference to p. 159 of the present volume, it may be seen that the
fulness or smallness of a vowel in a given syllable may work a change in
the nature of the vowel in a syllable adjoining. In the Anglo-Saxon the
following words exhibit a change of vowel.
_Positive._ _Comparative._ _Superlative._
Lang, Lengre, Lengest. _Long._
Strang, Strengre, Strengest. _Strong._
Geong, Gyngre, Gyngest. _Young._
Sceort, Scyrtre, Scyrtest. _Short._
He['a]h, Hyrre, Hyhst. _High._
Eald, Yldre, Yldest. _Old._
Of this change, the word last quoted is a still-existing specimen, as
_old_, _elder_ and _older_, _eldest_ and _oldest_. Between the two forms
there is a difference in meaning, _elder_ being used as a substantive, and
having a plural form, _elders_.
s. 315. The previous section has stated that in Anglo-Saxon there were two
forms for the comparative and superlative degrees, one in _-re_ and
_-este_, the other in _-or_ and _-ost_, respectively. Now the first of
these was the form taken by adjectives; as _se scearpre sweord_=_the
sharper sword_, and _se scearpeste sweord_=_the sharpest sword_. The
second, on the other hand, was the form taken by adverbs; as, _se sweord
scyrdh scearpor_=_the sword cuts sharper_, and _se sweord scyrdh
scearpost_=_the sword cuts sharpest_.
The adjectival form has, as seen above, a tendency to make the vowel of the
preceding syllable small: _old_, _elder_. {266}
The adverbial form has a tendency to make the vowel of the preceding
syllable full.
Of this effect on the part of the adverbial form the adverbial comparative
_rather_ is a specimen. We pronounce the _a_ as in _father_, or full.
Nevertheless, the positive form is small, the _a_ being pronounced as the
_a_ in _fate_.
The word _rather_ means _quick_, _easy_=the classical root [Greek: rhad-]
in [Greek: rhadios]. What we do _quickly_ and _willingly_ we do
_preferably_. Now if the word _rather_ were an adjective, the vowel of the
comparative would be sounded as the _a_ in _fate_. As it is, however, it is
adverbial, and as such is properly sounded as the _a_ in _father_.
The difference between the action of the small vowel in _-re_, and of the
full in _-or_, effects this difference.
s. 316. _Excess of expression._--Of this two samples have already been
given: 1. in words like _songstress_; 2. in words like _children_. This may
be called _excess of expression_; the feminine gender, in words like
_songstress_, and the plural number, in words like _children_, being
expressed twice over. In the vulgarism _betterer_ for _better_, and in the
antiquated forms _worser_ for _worse_, and _lesser_ for _less_, we have, in
the case of the comparatives, as elsewhere, an excess of expression. In the
Old High German we have the forms _betser[^o]ro_, _m[^e]r[^o]ro_,
_[^e]rerera_=_better_, _more_, _ere_.
s. 317. _Better._--Although in the superlative form _best_ there is a
slight variation from the strict form of that degree, the word _better_ is
perfectly regular. So far, then, from truth are the current statements that
the comparison of the words _good_, _better_, and _best_ is irregular. The
inflection is not irregular, but defective. As the statement that applies
to _good_, _better_, and _best_ applies to many words besides, it will be
well in this place, once for all, to exhibit it in full.
s. 318. _Difference between a sequence in logic and a sequence in
etymology._--The ideas or notions of _thou_, _thy_, _thee_, are ideas
between which there is a metaphysical or logical connexion. The train of
such ideas may be said to form a sequence and such a sequence may be called
a logical one.
The forms (or words) _thou_, _thy_, _thee_, are forms or words {267}
between which there is a formal or an etymological connexion. A train of
such words may be called a sequence, and such a sequence may be called an
etymological one.
In the case of _thou_, _thy_, _thee_, the etymological sequence tallies
with the logical one.
The ideas of _I_, _my_, and _me_ are also in a logical sequence: but the
forms _I_, _my_, and _me_ are not altogether in an etymological one.
In the case of _I_, _my_, _me_, the etymological sequence does _not_ tally
(or tallies imperfectly) with the logical one.
This is only another way of saying that between the words _I_ and _me_
there is no connexion in etymology.
It is also only another way of saying, that, in the oblique cases, _I_,
and, in the nominative case, _me_, are defective.
Now the same is the case with _good_, _better_, _bad_, _worse_, &c. _Good_
and _bad_ are defective in the comparative and superlative degrees;
_better_ and _worse_ are defective in the positive; whilst between _good_
and _better_, _bad_ and _worse_, there is a sequence in logic, but no
sequence in etymology.
To return, however, to the word _better_; no absolute positive degree is
found in any of the allied languages, and in none of the allied languages
is there found any comparative form of _good_. Its root occurs in the
following adverbial forms: Moeso-Gothic, _bats_; Old High German, _pats_;
Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon, _bet_; Middle High German, _baz_; Middle Dutch,
_bat_, _bet_.--Grimm, D. G. iii. 604.
s. 319. _Worse._--Moeso-Gothic, _vairsiza_; Old High German, _wirsiro_;
Middle High German, _wirser_; Old Saxon, _wirso_; Anglo-Saxon, _vyrsa_; Old
Norse, _verri_; Danish, _vaerre_; and Swedish, _vaerre_. Such are the
adjectival forms. The adverbial forms are Moeso-Gothic, _vairs_; Old High
German, _virs_; Middle High German, _wirs_; Anglo-Saxon, _vyrs_: Old Norse,
_verr_; Danish, _vaerre_; Swedish, _vaerre_.--Grimm, D. G. iii. 606.
Whether the present form in English be originally adjectival or adverbial
is indifferent; since, as soon as the final _a_ of _vyrsa_ was omitted, the
two words would be the same. The forms, however, _vairsiza_, _wirser_,
_worse_, and _verri_, make the word one of the most perplexing in the
language. {268}
If the form _worse_ be taken without respect to the rest, the view of the
matter is simply that in the termination _s_ we have a remnant of the
Moeso-Gothic forms, like _sutiza_, &c., in other words, the old comparative
in _s_.
_Wirser_ and _vairsiza_ traverse this view. They indicate the likelihood of
the _s_ being no sign of the degree, but a part of the original word.
Otherwise the _r_ in _wirser_, and the _z_ in _vairsiza_, denote an excess
of expression.
The analogies of _songstress_, _children_, and _betser[^o]ro_ show that
excess of expression frequently occurs.
The analogy of _m[^a]_ and _bet_ show that _worse_ may possibly be a
positive form.
The word _verri_ indicates the belief that the _s_ is no part of the root.
Finally the euphonic processes of the Scandinavian languages tell us that,
even had there been an _s_, it would, in all probability, have been
ejected. These difficulties verify the statement that the word _worse_ is
one of the most perplexing in the language.
s. 320. _Much_, _more_.--Here, although the words be unlike each other,
there is a true etymological relation. Moeso-Gothic, _mikils_; Old High
German, _mihhil_; Old Saxon, _mikil_; Anglo-Saxon, _mycel_; Old Norse,
_mickill_; Scotch, _muckle_ and _mickle_ (all ending in _l_): Danish,
_megen_, m.; _meget_, n.; Swedish, _mycken_, m.; _myckett_, n. (where no
_l_ is found). Such is the adjectival form of the positive, rarely found in
the Modern Gothic languages, being replaced in German by _gross_, in
English by _great_, in Danish by _stor_. The adverbial forms are _mioek_
and _mioeg_, Norse; _much_, English. It is remarkable that this last form
is not found in Anglo-Saxon, being replaced by _s[^a]re_, Germ,
_sehr_.--Grimm, D. G. iii. 608.
The adverbial and the Norse forms indicate that the _l_ is no part of the
original word. Comparison with other Indo-European languages gives us the
same circumstance: Sanskrit, _maha_; Latin, _mag-nus_; Greek, [Greek:
megas] (_megas_).
There is in Moeso-Gothic the comparative form _m['a]iza_, and there is no
objection to presuming a longer form, _magiza_; since in the Greek form
[Greek: meizon], compared with [Greek: megas], there {269} is a similar
disappearance of the _g_. In the Old High German we find _m[^e]ro_,
corresponding with _m['a]iza_, Moeso-Gothic, and with _more_, English.
_Mickle_ (replaced by _great_) expresses size; _much_, quantity; _many_,
number. The words _more_ and _most_ apply equally to number and quantity. I
am not prepared either to assert or to deny that _many_, in Anglo-Saxon
_maenig_, is from the same root with _much_. Of the word _m[^a]_ notice has
already been taken. Its later form, _moe_, occurs as late as Queen
Elizabeth, with an adjectival as well as an adverbial sense.
s. 321. _Little_, _less_.--Like _much_ and _more_, these words are in an
etymological relation to each other. Moeso-Gothic, _leitils_; Old High
German, _luzil_; Old Saxon, _luttil_; Anglo-Saxon, _lytel_; Middle High
German, _luetzel_; Old Norse, _l[^i]till_. In these forms we have the
letter _l_. Old High German Provincial, _luz['i]c_; Old Frisian, _litich_;
Middle Dutch, _luttik_; Swedish, _liten_; Danish, _liden_.--Deutsche
Grammatik, iii. 611. From these we find that the _l_ is either no part of
the original word, or one that is easily got rid of. In Swedish and Danish
there are the forms _lille_ and _liden_; whilst in the neuter form, _lidt_,
the _d_ is unpronounced. Even the word _liden_ the Danes have a tendency to
pronounce _leen_. My own notion is that these changes leave it possible for
_less_ to be derived from the root of _little_. According to Grimm, the
Anglo-Saxon _laessa_ is the Gothic _lasiv[^o]za_, the comparative of
_lasivs_=_weak_.--Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 611. In Anglo-Saxon there was
the adjectival form _laessa_, and the adverbial form _laes_. In either case
we have the form _s_.
s. 322. _Near_, _nearer_.--Anglo-Saxon, _neah_; comparative, _nearre_,
_near_, _nyr_; superlative, _nyhst_, _nehst_. Observe, in the Anglo-Saxon
positive and superlative, the absence of the _r_. This shows that the
English positive _near_ is the Anglo-Saxon comparative _nearre_, and that
in the secondary comparative _nearer_, we have an excess of expression. It
may be, however, that the _r_ in _near_ is a mere point of orthography, and
that it is not pronounced. The fact that in the English language the words
_father_ and _farther_ are, for the most part, pronounced alike, is the key
to the forms _near_ and _nearer_. {270}
s. 323. _Farther._--Anglo-Saxon _feor_, _fyrre_, _fyrrest_. The _th_ seems
euphonic, inserted by the same process that gives the [delta] in [Greek:
andros].
_Further._--Confounded with _farther_, although in reality from a different
word, _fore_. Old High German, _furdir_; New High German, _der vordere_;
Anglo-Saxon, _fyrdhre_.
s. 324. _Former._--A comparative formed from the superlative; _forma_ being
such. Consequently, an instance of excess of expression, combined with
irregularity.
Languages have a comparative without a superlative degree; no _language has
a superlative degree without having also a comparative one_.
s. 325. In Moeso-Gothic _sp[^e]dists_ means _last_, and
_sp[^e]diza_=_later_. Of the word _sp[^e]dists_ two views may be taken.
According to one it is the positive degree with the addition of _st_;
according to the other, it is the comparative degree with the addition only
of _t_. Now, Grimm and others lay down as a rule, that the superlative is
formed, not directly from the positive, but indirectly through the
comparative.
With the exception of _worse_ and _less_, all the English comparatives end
in _r_: yet no superlative ends in _rt_, the form being, not _wise_,
_wiser_, _wisert_, but _wise_, _wiser_, _wisest_. This fact, without
invalidating the notion just laid down, gives additional importance to the
comparative forms in _s_; since it is from these, before they have changed
to _r_, that we must suppose the superlatives to have been derived. The
theory being admitted, we can, by approximation, determine the comparative
antiquity of the superlative degree. It was introduced into the
Indo-European tongues after the establishment of the comparative, and
before the change of _-s_ into _-r_. I give no opinion as to the truth of
this theory.
* * * * *
{271}