THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE.
§ 240. There are four leading facts here,--
1. _The older form in -s._ In English we say old-er, bett-er, sweet-er; in
Old High German they similarly said, alt-iro, bets-iro, suats-iro; but in
Moeso-Gothic the forms were ald-iza, bat-iza, sut-iza.
2. _Adverbs_ are susceptible of comparison; e.g.--_Come as soon as you can,
but do not come sooner than is convenient_.
3. The Anglo-Saxon comparison of the adverbs is different from that of the
adjectives; there being one form in -re and -este, another in -or and -ost
respectively. Now the first of these was the form taken by adjectives: as
_se scearp-re sweord_ = _the sharper sword_, and _se scearp-este sword_ =
_the sharpest sword_. The second, on the other hand, was the form taken by
adverbs: as, _se sweord scyrð scearp-or_ = _the sword cuts sharper_, and
_se sweord scyrð scearp-ost_ = _the sword cuts sharpest_.
4. 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._
Heáh, Hyrre, Hyhst. _High._
Eald, Yldre, Yldest. _Old._
§ 241. Now the fourth of these facts explains the present forms _elder_ and
_eldest_, the comparatives and superlative of _old_, besides which there
are the regular forms _old-er_ and _old-est_; between which there is,
however, a difference in meaning--_elder_ being used as a substantive, and
having a plural form, _elders_.
§ 242. The abverbial forms in -or and -ost, as compared with the adjectival
in -re, and -este explain the form _rather_. This rhymes to _father_; the a
being full. Nevertheless, the positive form is _rather_ meaning _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 abverbial, 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, since o being a full vowel, it has the
effect of making the a full also.
§ 243. The old form in -s will be considered, after notice has been taken
of what may be called--
§ 244. _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 _betsërôro_, _mêrôro_, _êrërëra_ =
_better_, _more_, _ere_.
§ 245. _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.
§ 246. _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 words _thou, thy, thee_, are words 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.
§ 247. 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_.
§ 248. _Worse_.--This word is one of two things.
1. It is a positive form with a comparative sense; in which case s is part
of the root.
2. It is a comparative degree from the positive form wor- (vair-, wir-,
vyr-), in which case s is the s of the Old Moeso-Gothic inflexion preserved
in this single word.
§ 249. _More_.--In Anglo-Saxon this is _mâ_; in the English of the reign of
Elizabeth it is _moe_; and in certain provincial dialects it is _mo_, at
the present time.
Notwithstanding this, i.e., the form being positive, the _power_ of the
word has always been comparative, and meant _more_ rather than _much_, or
_many_.
§ 250. _Less_.--In Anglo-Saxon _læssa_ and _læs_. Here there is no
_unequivocal_ sign of the comparative degree; what, then, is the nature of
the word? Is it a positive form with a comparative power like _moe_? or is
it an old comparative in -s? This is undecided. What does it come from?
Grimm derives it from the Moeso-Gothic root _lasiv_ = _weak_. His doctrine
is doubtful. I cannot but believe that it comes from the same root as
_litt-le_; where the old Frisian form _litich_, shows that the -l is no
essential part of the word, and the Danish form _lille_ gets rid of the t.
Still the word is difficult; indeed it is unexplained.
§ 251. _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; since, in the English language the words _father_ and
_farther_ are, for the most part, pronounced alike.
§ 252. _Farther_.--Anglo-Saxon _feor, fyrre, fyrrest_. The th seems
euphonic, inserted by the same process that gives the [delta] in [Greek:
andros], from [Greek: anêr] = man.
_Further_.--Confounded with _farther_, although in reality from a different
word, _fore_. Old High German, _furdir_; New High German, _der vordere_;
Anglo-Saxon, _fyrðre_.
§ 253. _Former_.--A comparative formed from the superlative; _forma_ being
such. Consequently, an instance of excess of expression, combined with
irregularity.
§ 254. In Moeso-Gothic _spêdists_ means _last_, and _spêdiza_ = _later_. Of
the word _spêdists_ 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 _after_ the establishment of the
comparative, and _before_ the change of -s into -r.
* * * * *