OBS. 6.--The pronouns _he_ and _she_, when placed before or prefixed to

nouns merely to denote their gender, appear to be used adjectively; as,

"The male or _he_ animals offered in sacrifice."--_Wood's Dict., w. Males_.

"The most usual term is _he_ or _she, male_ or _female_, employed as an

adjective: as, a _he bear_, a _she bear_; a _male elephant_, a _female

elephant_."--_Churchill's Gram._, p. 69. Most writers, however, think

proper to insert a hyphen in the terms here referred to: as, _he-bear,

she-bear_, the plurals of which are _he-bears_ and _she-bears_. And,

judging by the foregoing rule of predication, we must assume that this

practice only is right. In the first example, the word _he_ is useless; for

the term "_male animals_" is sufficiently clear without it. It has been

shown in the third chapter, that _he_ and _she_ are sometimes used as

nouns; and that, as such, they may take the regular declension of nouns,

making the plurals _hes_ and _shes_. But whenever these words are used

adjectively to denote gender, whether we choose to insert the hyphen or

not, they are, without question, indeclinable, like other adjectives. In

the following example, Sanborn will have _he_ to be a noun in the

_objective_ case; but I consider it rather, to be an adjective, signifying

_masculine_:

"(_Philosophy_, I say, and call _it He_;

For, whatsoe'er the painter's fancy be,

It a male-virtue seems to me.")--_Cowley_, Brit. Poets, Vol. ii, p. 54.

OBS. 7.--Though verbs give rise to many adjectives, they seldom, if ever,

become such by a mere change of construction. It is mostly by assuming an

additional termination, that any verb is formed into an adjective: as in

_teachable, moveable, oppressive, diffusive, prohibitory_. There are,

however, about forty words ending in _ate_, which, without difference of

form, are either verbs or adjectives; as, _aggregate, animate, appropriate,

articulate, aspirate, associate, complicate, confederate, consummate,

deliberate, desolate, effeminate, elate, incarnate, intimate, legitimate,

moderate, ordinate, precipitate, prostrate, regenerate, reprobate,

separate, sophisticate, subordinate_. This class of adjectives seems to be

lessening. The participials in _ed_, are superseding some of them, at least

in popular practice: as, _contaminated_, for _contaminate_, defiled;

_reiterated_, for _reiterate_, repeated; _situated_, for _situate_, placed;

_attenuated_, for _attenuate_, made thin or slender. _Devote, exhaust_, and

some other verbal forms, are occasionally used by the poets, in lieu of the

participial forms, _devoted, exhausted_, &c.

OBS. 8.--Participles, which have naturally much resemblance to this part

of speech, often drop their distinctive character, and become adjectives.

This is usually the case whenever they stand immediately _before_ the nouns

to which they relate; as, A _pleasing_ countenance, a _piercing_ eye, an

_accomplished_ scholar, an _exalted_ station. Many participial adjectives

are derivatives formed from participles by the negative prefix _un_, which

reverses the meaning of the primitive word; as, _undisturbed, undivided,

unenlightened_. Most words of this kind differ of course from participles,

because there are no such verbs as _to undisturb, to undivide_, &c. Yet

they may be called participial adjectives, because they have the

termination, and embrace the form, of participles. Nor should any

participial adjective be needlessly varied from the true orthography of the

participle: a distinction is, however, observed by some writers, between

_past_ and _passed, staid_ and _stayed_; and some old words, as _drunken,

stricken, shotten, rotten_, now obsolete as participles, are still retained

as adjectives. This sort of words will be further noticed in the chapter on

participles.

OBS. 9.--Adverbs are generally distinguished from adjectives, by the form,

as well as by the construction, of the words. Yet, in instances not a few,

the same word is capable of being used both adjectively and adverbially. In

these cases, the scholar must determine the part of speech, by the

construction alone; remembering that adjectives belong to nouns or pronouns

only; and adverbs, to verbs, participles, adjectives, or other adverbs,

only. The following examples from Scripture, will partially illustrate this

point, which will be noticed again under the head of syntax: "Is your

father well?"--_Gen._, xliii, 27. "Thou hast well said."--_John_, iv, 17.

"He separateth very friends."--_Prov._, xvii, 9. "Esaias is _very_

bold."--_Rom._, x, 20. "For a pretence, ye make _long_ prayer."--_Matt._,

xxiii, 14. "They that tarry _long_ at the wine."--_Prov._, xxiii, 30. "It

had not _much_ earth."--_Mark_, iv, 5. "For she loved _much_."--_Luke_,

vii, 47.

OBS. 10.--Prepositions, in regard to their _construction_, differ from

adjectives, almost exactly as active-transitive participles differ

syntactically from adjectives: that is, in stead of being mere adjuncts to

the words which follow them, they govern those words, and refer back to

some other term; which, in the usual order of speech, stands before them.

Thus, if I say, "A spreading oak," _spreading_ is an adjective relating to

oak; if, "A boy spreading hay," _spreading_ is a participle, governing

_hay_, and relating to _boy_, because the boy is the agent of the action.

So, when Dr. Webster says, "The _off_ horse in a team," _off_ is an

adjective, relating to the noun _horse_; but, in the phrase, "A man _off_

his guard," _off_ is a preposition, showing the relation between _man_ and

_guard_, and governing the latter. The following are other examples: "From

the _above_ speculations."--_Harris's Hermes_, p. 194. "An _after_ period

of life."--MARSHALL: _in Web. Dict._ "With some other of the _after_

Judaical rites."--_Right of Tythes_, p. 86. "Whom this _beneath_ world doth

embrace and hug."--_Shak._ "Especially is _over_ exertion made."--_Journal

of Lit. Conv._, p. 119. "To both the _under_ worlds."--_Hudibras_. "Please

to pay to A. B. the amount of the _within_ bill." Whether properly used or

not, the words _above, after, beneath, over, under, and within_, are here

unquestionably made _adjectives_; yet every scholar knows, that they are

generally prepositions, though sometimes adverbs.

CLASSES.

Adjectives may be divided into six classes; namely, _common, proper,

numeral, pronominal, participial_, and _compound_.

I. A _common adjective_ is any ordinary epithet, or adjective denoting

quality or situation; as, _Good, bad, peaceful, warlike--eastern, western,

outer, inner_.

II. A _proper adjective_ is an adjective formed from a proper name; as,

_American, English, Platonic, Genoese_.

III. A _numeral adjective_ is an adjective that expresses a definite

number; as, _One, two, three, four, five, six_, &c.

IV. A _pronominal adjective_ is a definitive word which may either

accompany its noun, or represent it understood; as, "_All_ join to guard

what _each_ desires to gain."--_Pope_. That is, "_All men_ join to guard

what _each man_ desires to gain."

V. A _participial adjective_ is one that has the form of a participle, but

differs from it by rejecting the idea of time; as, "An _amusing_

story,"--"A _lying_ divination."

VI. A _compound adjective_ is one that consists of two or more words joined

together, either by the hyphen or solidly: as, _Nut-brown, laughter-loving,

four-footed; threefold, lordlike, lovesick_.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--This distribution of the adjectives is no less easy to be applied,

than necessary to a proper explanation in parsing. How many adjectives

there are in the language, it is difficult to say; none of our

dictionaries profess to exhibit all that are embraced in some of the

foregoing classes. Of the Common Adjectives, there are probably not fewer

than six thousand, exclusive of the common nouns which we refer to this

class when they are used adjectively. Walker's Rhyming Dictionary contains

five thousand or more, the greater part of which may be readily

distinguished by their peculiar endings. Of those which end in _ous_, as

_generous_, there are about 850. Of those in _y_ or _ly_, as _shaggy,

homely_, there are about 550. Of those in _ive_, as _deceptive_, there are

about 400. Of those in _al_, as _autumnal_, there are about 550. Of those

in _ical_, as _mechanical_, there are about 350. Of those in _able_, as

_valuable_, there are about 600. Of those in _ible_, as _credible_, there

are about 200. Of those in _ent_, as _different_, there are about 300. Of

those in _ant_, as _abundant_, there are about 170. Of those in _less_, as

_ceaseless_, there are about 220. Of those in _ful_, as _useful_, there are

about 130. Of those in _ory_, as _explanatory_, there are about 200. Of

those in _ish_, as _childish_, there are about 100. Of those in _ine_, as

_masculine_, there are about 70. Of those in _en_, as _wooden_, there are

about 50. Of those in _some_, as _quarrelsome_, there are about 30. These

sixteen numbers added together, make 4770.

OBS. 2.--The Proper Adjectives are, in many instances, capable of being

converted into declinable nouns: as, _European, a European, the Europeans;

Greek, a Greek, the Greeks; Asiatic, an Asiatic, the Asiatics_. But with

the words _English, French, Dutch, Scotch, Welsh, Irish_, and in general

all such as would acquire an additional syllable in their declension, the

case is otherwise. The gentile noun has frequently fewer syllables than the

adjective, but seldom more, unless derived from some different root.

Examples: _Arabic, an Arab, the Arabs; Gallic, a Gaul, the Gauls; Danish, a

Dane, the Danes; Moorish, a Moor, the Moors; Polish, a Pole_, or _Polander,

the Poles; Swedish, a Swede, the Swedes; Turkish, a Turk, the Turks_. When

we say, _the English, the French, the Dutch, the Scotch, the Welsh, the

Irish_,--meaning, _the English people, the French people_, &c., many

grammarians conceive that _English, French_, &c., are _indeclinable nouns_.

But in my opinion, it is better to reckon them _adjectives_, relating to

the noun _men_ or _people_ understood. For if these words are nouns, so are

a thousand others, after which there is the same ellipsis; as when we say,

_the good, the great, the wise, the learned_.[168] The principle would

involve the inconvenience of multiplying our nouns of the singular form and

a plural meaning, indefinitely. If they are nouns, they are, in this sense,

plural only; and, in an other, they are singular only. For we can no more

say, _an English, an Irish_, or _a French_, for _an Englishman, an

Irishman_, or _a Frenchman_; than we can say, _an old, a selfish_, or _a

rich_, for _an old man, a selfish man_, or _a rich man_. Yet, in

distinguishing the _languages_, we call them _English, French, Dutch,

Scotch, Welsh, Irish_; using the words, certainly, in no plural sense; and

preferring always the line of adjectives, where the gentile noun is

different: as, _Arabic_, and not _Arab_; _Danish_, and not _Dane_;

_Swedish_, and not _Swede_. In this sense, as well as in the former,

Webster, Chalmers, and other modern lexicographers, call the words _nouns_;

and the reader will perceive, that the objections offered before do not

apply here. But Johnson, in his two quarto volumes, gives only two words of

this sort, _English_ and _Latin_; and both of these he calls _adjectives_:

"ENGLISH, _adj._ Belonging to England; hence English[169] is the language

of England." The word _Latin_, however, he makes a noun, when it means a

schoolboy's exercise; for which usage he quotes, the following inaccurate

example from Ascham: "He shall not use the common order in schools for

making of _Latins_."

OBS. 3.--Dr. Webster gives us explanations like these: "CHINESE, _n. sing._

and _plu._ A native of China; also the language of China."--"JAPANESE, _n._

A native of Japan; or the language of the inhabitants."--"GENOESE, _n. pl._

the people of Genoa in Italy. _Addison_."--"DANISH, _n._ The language of

the Danes."--"IRISH, _n._ 1. A native of Ireland. 2. The language of the

Irish; the Hiberno-Celtic." According to him, then, it is proper to say, _a

Chinese, a Japanese_, or _an Irish_; but not, _a Genoese_, because he will

have this word to be plural only! Again, if with him we call a native of

Ireland _an Irish_, will not more than one be _Irishes?_[170] If a native

of Japan be _a Japanese_, will not more than one be _Japaneses?_ In short,

is it not plain, that the words, _Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese, Maltese,

Genoese, Milanese_, and all others of like formation, should follow one and

the same rule? And if so, what is that rule? Is it not this;--that, like

_English, French_, &c., they are always _adjectives_; except, perhaps, when

they denote _languages_? There may possibly be some real authority from

usage, for calling a native of China _a Chinese_,--of Japan _a

Japanese_,--&c.; as there is also for the regular plurals, _Chineses,

Japaneses_, &c.; but is it, in either case, good and sufficient authority?

The like forms, it is acknowledged, are, on some occasions, mere

adjectives; and, in modern usage, we do not find these words inflected, as

they were formerly. Examples: "The _Chinese_ are by no means a cleanly

people, either in person or dress."--_Balbi's Geog._, p. 415. "The

_Japanese_ excel in working in copper, iron, and steel."--_Ib._, p. 419.

"The _Portuguese_ are of the same origin with the Spaniards."--_Ib._, p.

272. "By whom the undaunted _Tyrolese_ are led."--_Wordsworth's Poems_, p.

122. Again: "Amongst the _Portugueses_, 'tis so much a Fashion, and

Emulation, amongst their Children, to _learn_ to _Read_, and Write, that

they cannot hinder them from it."--_Locke, on Education_, p. 271. "The

_Malteses_ do so, who harden the Bodies of their Children, and reconcile

them to the Heat, by making them go stark Naked."--_Idem, Edition of_ 1669,

p. 5. "CHINESE, _n. s_. Used elliptically for the language and people of

China: plural, _Chineses. Sir T. Herbert_."--_Abridgement of Todd's

Johnson_. This is certainly absurd. For if _Chinese_ is used _elliptically_

for the people of China, it is an _adjective_, and does not form the

plural, _Chineses_: which is precisely what I urge concerning the whole

class. These plural forms ought not to be imitated. Horne Tooke quotes some

friend of his, as saying, "No, I will never descend with him beneath even

_a Japanese_: and I remember what Voltaire remarks of _that

country_."--_Diversions of Purley_, i, 187. In this case, he ought,

unquestionably, to have said--"beneath even _a native of Japan_;" because,

whether _Japanese_ be a noun or not, it is absurd to call _a Japanese_,

"_that country_." Butler, in his Hudibras, somewhere uses the word

_Chineses_; and it was, perhaps, in his day, common; but still, I say, it

is contrary to analogy, and therefore wrong. Milton, too, has it:

"But in his way lights on the barren plains

Of Sericana, where Chineses[171] drive

With sails and wind their cany _waggons_ light."

--_Paradise Lost_, B. iii, l. 437.

OBS. 4.--The Numeral Adjectives are of three kinds, namely, _cardinal,

ordinal_, and _multiplicative_: each kind running on in a series

indefinitely. Thus:--

1. _Cardinal_; One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten,

eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen,

nineteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, &c.

2. _Ordinal_; First, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth,

ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth,

sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first,

twenty-second, &c.

3. _Multiplicative_; Single or alone, double or twofold, triple or

threefold, quadruple or fourfold, quintuple or fivefold, sextuple or

sixfold, septuple or sevenfold, octuple or eightfold, &c. But high terms of

this series are seldom used. All that occur above decuple or tenfold, are

written with a hyphen, and are usually of round numbers only; as,

thirty-fold, sixty-fold, hundred-fold.

OBS. 5.--A cardinal numeral denotes the whole number, but the corresponding

ordinal denotes only the last one of that number, or, at the beginning of a

series, the first of several or many. Thus: "_One_ denotes simply the

number _one_, without any regard to more; but _first_ has respect to more,

and so denotes only the first one of a greater number; and _two_ means the

number _two_ completely; but _second_, the last one of _two_: and so of all

the rest."--_Burn's Gram._, p. 54. A cardinal number answers to the

question, "_How many_?" An ordinal number answers to the question, "_Which

one_?" or, "_What one_?" All the ordinal numbers, except _first, second,

third_, and the compounds of these, as _twenty-first, twenty-second,

twenty-third_, are formed directly from the cardinal numbers by means of

the termination _th_. And as the primitives, in this case, are many of them

either compound words, or phrases consisting of several words, it is to be

observed, that the addition is made to the last term only. That is, of

every compound ordinal number, the last term only is ordinal in form. Thus

we say, _forty-ninth_, and not _fortieth-ninth_; nor could the meaning of

the phrase, _four hundred and fiftieth_, be expressed by saying, _fourth

hundredth and fiftieth_; for this, if it means any thing, speaks of three

different numbers.

OBS. 6.--Some of the numerals are often used as _nouns_; and, as such, are

regularly declined: as, _Ones, twoes, threes, fours, fives_, &c. So,

_Fifths, sixths, sevenths, eighths, ninths, tenths_, &c. "The _seventy's_

translation."--_Wilson's Hebrew Gram._, p. 32. "I will not do it for

_forty's_ sake."--_Gen._, xviii, 29. "I will not destroy it for _twenty's_

sake."--_Ib._, ver. 31. "For _ten's_ sake."--_Ib._, ver. 32. "They sat down

in ranks, by _hundreds_, and by _fifties_."--_Mark_, vi, 40. "There are

_millions_ of truths that a man is not concerned to know."--_Locke_. With

the compound numerals, such a construction is less common; yet the

denominator of a fraction may be a number of this sort: as, seven

_twenty-fifths_. And here it may be observed, that, in stead of the ancient

phraseology, as in 1 Chron., xxiv, 17th, "The _one and twentieth_ to

Jachin, the _two and twentieth_ to Gamul, the _three and twentieth_ to

Delaiah, the _four and twentieth_ to Maaziah," we now generally say, _the

twenty-first, the twenty-second_, &c.; using the hyphen in all compounds

till we arrive at _one hundred_, or _one hundredth_, and then first

introducing the word _and_; as, _one hundred and one_, or _one hundred and

first_, &c.

OBS. 7.--The Pronominal Adjectives are comparatively very few; but

frequency of use gives them great importance in grammar. The following

words are perhaps all that properly belong to this class, and several of

these are much oftener something else: _All, any, both, certain, divers,

each, either, else, enough, every, few, fewer, fewest, former, first,

latter, last, little, less, least, many, more, most, much, neither, no_ or

_none, one, other, own, only, same, several, some, such, sundry, that,

this, these, those, what, whatever, whatsoever, which, whichever,

whichsoever_.[172] Of these forty-six words, seven are always singular, if

the word _one_ is not an exception; namely, _each, either, every, neither,

one, that, this_: and nine or ten others are always plural, if the word

_many_ is not an exception; namely, _both, divers, few, fewer, fewest,

many, several, sundry, these, those_. All the rest, like our common

adjectives, are applicable to nouns of either number. _Else, every, only,

no_, and _none_, are definitive words, which I have thought proper to call

pronominal adjectives, though only the last can now with propriety be made

to represent its noun understood. "Nor has Vossius, or _any else_ that I

know of, observed it."--_Johnson's Gram. Com._, p. 279. Say, "or any _one_

else." Dr. Webster explains this word _else_ thus: "ELSE, _a._ or _pron._

[Sax. _elles_] Other; one or something _beside_; as, Who _else_ is

coming?"--_Octavo Dict._ "Each and _every_ of them," is an old phrase in

which _every_ is used pronominally, or with ellipsis of the word to which

it refers; but, in common discourse, we now say, _every one, every man_,

&c., never using the word _every_ alone to suggest its noun. _Only_ is

perhaps most commonly an adverb; but it is still in frequent use as an

adjective; and in old books we sometimes find an ellipsis of the noun to

which it belongs; as, "Neither are they the _only_ [verbs] in which it is

read."--_Johnson's Grammatical Commentaries_, p. 373. "But I think he is

the _only_ [one] of these Authors."--_Ib._, p. 193. _No_ and _none_ seem to

be only different forms of the same adjective; the former being used before

a noun expressed, and the latter when the noun is understood, or not placed

after the adjective; as, "For _none_ of us liveth to himself, and _no_ man

dieth to himself."--_Romans_, xiv, 7. _None_ was anciently used for _no_

before all words beginning with a vowel sound; as, "They are sottish

children; and they have _none_ understanding."--_Jeremiah_, iv, 22. This

practice is now obsolete. _None_ is still used, when its noun precedes it;

as,

"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.

OBS. 7.--In all comparisons, care must be taken to adapt the terms to the

degree which is expressed by the adjective or adverb. The superlative

degree requires that the object to which it relates, be one of those with

which it is compared; as, "_Eve_ was _the fairest_ of women." The

comparative degree, on the contrary, requires that the object spoken of be

not included among those with which it is compared; as, "_Eve_ was _fairer_

than any of _her daughters_." To take the inclusive term here, and say,

"_Eve_ was _fairer_ than any _woman_," would be no less absurd, than

Milton's assertion, that "Eve was _the fairest_ of _her daughters_:" the

former supposes that she was _not a woman_; the latter, that she was _one

of her own daughters_. But Milton's solecism is double; he makes Adam _one

of his own sons_:--

"Adam the goodliest man of men since born

His sons, the fairest of her daughters Eve."--_P. Lost_, B. iv, l. 324.

OBS. 8.--"Such adjectives," says Churchill, "as have in themselves a

superlative signification, or express qualities not susceptible of degrees,

do not properly admit either the comparative or [the] superlative form.

Under this rule may be included _all adjectives with a negative

prefix_."--_New Gram._, p. 80. Again: "As _immediate_ signifies instant,

present with regard to time, Prior should not have written '_more_

immediate.' _Dr. Johnson_."--_Ib._, p. 233. "Hooker has _unaptest_; Locke,

_more uncorrupted_; Holder, _more undeceivable_: for these the proper

expressions would have been the opposite signs without the negation: _least

apt, less corrupted, less deceivable_. Watts speaks of 'a _most unpassable_

barrier.' If he had simply said 'an unpassable barrier,' we should have

understood it at once in the strongest sense, as a barrier impossible to be

surmounted: but, by attempting to express something more, he gives an idea

of something less; we perceive, that his _unpassable_ means _difficult to

pass_. This is the mischief of the propensity to exaggeration; which,

striving after strength, sinks into weakness."--_Ib._, p. 234.

OBS. 9.--The foregoing remarks from Churchill appear _in general_ to have

been dictated by good sense; but, if his own practice is right, there must

be some exceptions to his rule respecting the comparison of adjectives with

a negative prefix; for, in the phrase "_less imprudent_," which, according

to a passage quoted before, he will have to be different from "_more

prudent_," he himself furnishes an example of such comparison. In fact,

very many words of that class are compared by good writers: as, "Nothing is

_more unnecessary_."--_Lowth's Gram., Pref._, p. v. "What is yet _more

unaccountable_."--ROGERS: _in Joh. Dict._ "It is hard to determine which is

_most uneligible_."--_Id., ib._ "Where it appears the _most unbecoming_ and

_unnatural_."--ADDISON: _ib._ "Men of the best sense and of the _most

unblemished_ lives."--_Id., ib._ "March and September are the _most

unsettled_ and _unequable_ of seasons."--BENTLEY: _ib._ "Barcelona was

taken by a _most unexpected_ accident."--SWIFT: _ib._ "The _most barren_

and _unpleasant_."--WOODWARD: _ib._ "O good, but _most unwise_

patricians!"--SHAK.: _ib._ "_More unconstant_ than the wind."--_Id., ib._

"We may say _more_ or _less imperfect_."--_Murray's Gram._, p. 168. "Some

of those [passions] which act with the _most irresistible_ energy upon the

hearts of mankind, are altogether omitted in the catalogue of

Aristotle."--_Adams's Rhet._, i, 380. "The wrong of him who presumes to

talk of owning me, is _too unmeasured_ to be softened by

kindness."--_Channing, on Emancipation_, p. 52. "Which, we are sensible,

are _more inconclusive_ than the rest."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 319.

"Ere yet the salt of _most unrighteous_ tears

Had left the flushing in her galled eyes."--_Shak._

OBS. 10.--Comparison must not be considered a general property of

adjectives. It belongs chiefly to the class which I call common adjectives,

and is by no means applicable to all of these. _Common adjectives_, or

epithets denoting quality, are perhaps more numerous than all the other

classes put together. Many of these, and a few that are pronominal, may be

varied by comparison; and some _participial_ adjectives may be compared by

means of the adverbs. But adjectives formed from _proper names_, all the

numerals, and most of the compounds, are in no way susceptible of

comparison. All nouns used adjectively, as an _iron_ bar, an _evening_

school, a _mahogany_ chair, a _South-Sea_ dream, are also incapable of

comparison. In the title of "His _Most Christian_ Majesty," the superlative

adverb is applied to a _proper adjective_; but who will pretend that we

ought to understand by it "_the highest degree_" of Christian attainment?

It might seem uncourtly to suggest that this is "an abuse of the king's

English," I shall therefore say no such thing. Pope compares the word

Christian, in the following couplet:--

"Go, purified by flames ascend the sky,

My better and _more Christian_ progeny."--_Dunciad_, B. i, l. 227.

IRREGULAR COMPARISON.

The following adjectives are compared irregularly: _good, better, best;

bad, evil_, or _ill, worse, worst; little, less, least; much, more, most;

many, more, most_.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--In _English_, and also in _Latin_, most adjectives that denote

_place_ or _situation_, not only form the superlative irregularly, but are

also either defective or redundant in comparison. Thus:

I. The following nine have more than one superlative: _far, farther,

farthest, farmost_, or _farthermost; near, nearer, nearest_ or _next; fore,

former, foremost_ or _first; hind, hinder, hindmost_ or _hindermost; in,

inner, inmost_ or _innermost; out, outer_, or _utter, outmost_ or _utmost,

outermost_ or _uttermost; up, upper, upmost_ or _uppermost; low, lower,

lowest_ or _lowermost; late, later_ or _latter, latest_ or _last_.

II. The following five want the positive: [_aft_, adv.,] _after, aftmost_

or _aftermost_; [_forth_, adv., formerly _furth_,[180]] _further, furthest_

or _furthermost; hither, hithermost; nether, nethermost; under, undermost_.

III. The following want the comparative: _front, frontmost; rear, rearmost;

head, headmost; end, endmost; top, topmost; bottom, bottommost; mid_ or

_middle, midst,[181] midmost_ or _middlemost; north, northmost; south,

southmost; east, eastmost; west, westmost; northern, northernmost;

southern, southernmost; eastern, easternmost; western, westernmost_.

OBS. 2.--Many of these irregular words are not always used as adjectives,

but oftener as nouns, adverbs, or prepositions. The sense in which they are

employed, will show to what class they belong. The terms _fore_ and _hind,

front_ and _rear, right_ and _left, in_ and _out, high_ and _low, top_ and

_bottom, up_ and _down, upper_ and _under, mid_ and _after_, all but the

last pair, are in direct contrast with each other. Many of them are often

joined in composition with other words; and some, when used as adjectives

of place, are rarely separated from their nouns: as, _in_land, _out_house,

_mid_-sea, _after_-ages. Practice is here so capricious, I find it

difficult to determine whether the compounding of these terms is proper or

not. It is a case about which he that inquires most, may perhaps be most in

doubt. If the joining of the words prevents the possibility of mistaking

the adjective for a preposition, it prevents also the separate

classification of the adjective and the noun, and thus in some sense

destroys the former by making the whole a noun. Dr. Webster writes thus:

"FRONTROOM, _n._ A room or apartment in the _forepart_ of a house.

BACKROOM, _n._ A room behind the _front room_, or in the _back part_ of the

house."--_Octavo Dict._ So of many phrases by which people tell of turning

things, or changing the position of their parts; as, _in_side out,

_out_side _in; up_side _down, down_side _up_; _wrong_ end _foremost,

but_-end _foremost_; _fore_-part _back, fore_-end _aft_; _hind_ side

_before, back_side _before_. Here all these contrasted particles seem to be

adjectives of place or situation. What grammarians in general would choose

to call them, it is hard to say; probably, many would satisfy themselves

with calling the whole "_an adverbial phrase_,"--the common way of

disposing of every thing which it is difficult to analyze. These, and the

following examples from Scott, are a fair specimen of the uncertainty of

present usage:

"The herds without a keeper strayed,

The plough was in _mid-furrow_ staid."--_Lady of the Lake_.

"The eager huntsman knew his bound,

And in _mid chase_ called off his hound."--_Ibidem_.

OBS. 3.--For the chief points of the compass, we have so many adjectives,

and so many modes of varying or comparing them, that it is difficult to

tell their number, or to know which to choose in practice. (1.) _North,

south, east_, and _west_, are familiarly used both as nouns and as

adjectives. From these it seems not improper to form superlatives, as

above, by adding _most_; as, "From Aroar to Nebo, and the wild of

_southmost_ Abarim."--_Milton_. "There are no rivulets or springs in the

island of Feror, the _westmost_ of the Canaries."--_White's Nat. Hist._

(2.) These primitive terms may also be compared, in all three of the

degrees, by the adverbs _farther_ and _farthest_, or _further_ and

_furthest_; as, "Which is yet _farther west_."--_Bacon_. (3.) Though we

never employ as separate words the comparatives _norther, souther, easter,

wester_, we have _northerly, southerly, easterly_, and _westerly_, which

seem to have been formed from such comparatives, by adding _ly_; and these

four may be compared by the adverbs _more_ and _most_, or _less_ and

_least_: as, "These hills give us a view of the _most easterly, southerly_,

and _westerly_ parts of England."--GRAUNT: _in Joh. Dict._ (4.) From these

supposed comparatives likewise, some authors form the superlatives

_northermost, southermost, eastermost_, and _westermost_; as, "From the

_westermost_ part of Oyster bay."--_Dr. Webster's Hist. U. S._, p. 126.

"And three miles southward of the _southermost_ part of said

bay."--_Trumbull's Hist. of Amer._, Vol. i, p. 88. "Pockanocket was on the

_westermost_ line of Plymouth Colony."--_Ib._, p. 44. "As far as the

_northermost_ branch of the said bay or river."--_Ib._, p. 127. The

propriety of these is at least questionable; and, as they are neither very

necessary to the language, nor recognized by any of our lexicographers, I

forbear to approve them. (5.) From the four primitives we have also a third

series of positives, ending in _ern_; as, _northern, southern, eastern,

western_. These, though they have no comparatives of their own, not only

form superlatives by assuming the termination _most_, but are sometimes

compared, perhaps in both degrees, by a separate use of the adverbs: as,

"_Southernmost, a_. Furthest towards the south."--_Webster's Dict._ "Until

it shall intersect the _northernmost_ part of the thirty-first degree of

north latitude."--_Articles of Peace_. "To the _north-westernmost_ head of

Connecticut river."--_Ib._ "Thence through the said lake to the _most

north-western_ point thereof."--_Ib._

OBS. 4.--It may be remarked of the comparatives _former_ and _latter_ or

_hinder, upper_ and _under_ or _nether, inner_ and _outer_ or _utter,

after_ and _hither_; as well as of the Latin _superior_ and _inferior,

anterior_ and _posterior, interior_ and _exterior, prior_ and _ulterior,

senior_ and _junior, major_ and _minor_; that they cannot, like other

comparatives, be construed with the conjunction _than_. After all genuine

English comparatives, this conjunction may occur, because it is the only

fit word for introducing the latter term of comparison; but we never say

one thing is _former_ or _latter, superior_ or _inferior, than_ an other.

And so of all the rest here named. Again, no real comparative or

superlative can ever need an other superadded to it; but _inferior_ and

_superior_ convey ideas that do not always preclude the additional

conception of _more_ or _less_: as, "With respect to high and low notes,

pronunciation is still _more inferior_ to singing."--_Kames, Elements of

Criticism_, Vol. ii, p. 73. "The mistakes which the _most superior_

understanding is apt to fall into."--_West's Letters to a Young Lady_, p.

117.

OBS. 5.--Double comparatives and double superlatives, being in general

awkward and unfashionable, as well as tautological, ought to be avoided.

Examples: "The Duke of Milan, and his _more braver_ daughter, could control

thee."--_Shak., Tempest_. Say, "his _more gallant_ daughter." "What in me

was purchased, falls upon thee in a _more fairer_ sort."--_Id., Henry IV_.

Say, "_fairer_," or, "_more honest_;" for "_purchased_" here means

_stolen_. "Changed to a _worser_ shape thou canst not be."--_Id., Hen. VI_.

Say, "a _worse_ shape"--or, "an _uglier_ shape." "After the _most

straitest_ sect of our religion, I lived a Pharisee."--_Acts_, xxvi, 5.

Say, "the _strictest_ sect." "Some say he's mad; others, that _lesser_ hate

him, do call it valiant fury."--_Shak_. Say, "others, that hate him

_less_." In this last example, _lesser_ is used adverbially; in which

construction it is certainly incorrect. But against _lesser_ as an

adjective, some grammarians have spoken with more severity, than comports

with a proper respect for authority. Dr. Johnson says, "LESSER, _adj_. A

barbarous corruption of _less_, formed by the vulgar from the habit of

terminating comparatives in _er; afterward adopted by poets, and then by

writers of prose, till it has all the authority which a mode originally

erroneous can derive from custom_."--_Quarto Dict._ With no great fairness,

Churchill quotes this passage as far as the semicolon, and there stops. The

position thus taken, he further endeavours to strengthen, by saying,

"_Worser_, though _not more barbarous_, offends the ear in a much greater

degree, because it has not been so frequently used."--_New Gram._, p. 232.

Example: "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day,

and the _lesser_ light to rule the night."--_Gen._, i, 16. Kirkham, after

making an _imitation_ of this passage, remarks upon it: "_Lesser_ is _as

incorrect_ as _badder, gooder, worser_."--_Gram._, p. 77. The judgement of

any critic who is ignorant enough to say this, is worthy only of contempt.

_Lesser_ is still frequently used by the most tasteful authors, both in

verse and prose: as, "It is the glowing style of a man who is negligent of

_lesser_ graces."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 189.

"Athos, Olympus, Ætna, Atlas, made

These hills seem things of _lesser_ dignity."--_Byron_.

OBS. 6.--The adjective _little_ is used in different senses; for it

contrasts sometimes with _great_, and sometimes with _much_. _Lesser_

appears to refer only to size. Hence _less_ and _lesser_ are not always

equivalent terms. _Lesser_ means _smaller_, and contrasts only with

_greater_. _Less_ contrasts sometimes with _greater_, but oftener with

_more_, the comparative of _much_; for, though it may mean _not so large_,

its most common meaning is _not so much_. It ought to be observed,

likewise, that _less_ is not an adjective of _number_,[182] though not

unfrequently used as such. It does not mean _fewer_, and is therefore not

properly employed in sentences like the following: "In all verbs, there are

no _less_ than three things implied at once."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 81.

"_Smaller_ things than three," is nonsense; and so, in reality, is what the

Doctor here says. _Less_ is not the proper opposite to _more_, when _more_

is the comparative of _many: few, fewer, fewest_, are the only words which

contrast regularly with _many, more, most_. In the following text, these

comparatives are rightly employed: "And to the _more_ ye shall give the

_more_ inheritance, and to the _fewer_ ye shall give the _less_

inheritance."--_Numbers_, xxxiii, 54. But if writers will continue to use

_less_ for _fewer_, so that "_less cattle_," for instance, may mean "_fewer

cattle_;" we shall be under a sort of _necessity_ to retain _lesser_, in

order to speak intelligibly: as, "It shall be for the sending-forth of

oxen, and for the treading of _lesser_ cattle."--_Isaiah_, vii, 25. I have

no partiality for the word _lesser_, neither will I make myself ridiculous

by flouting at its rudeness. "This word," says Webster, "is a corruption,

but [it is] too well established to be discarded. Authors always write the

_Lesser_ Asia."--_Octavo Dict._ "By the same reason, may a man punish the

_lesser_ breaches of that law."--_Locke_. "When we speak of the _lesser_

differences among the tastes of men."--_Blair's Rhet._, p. 20. "In greater

or _lesser_ degrees of complexity."--_Burke, on Sublime_, p. 94. "The

greater ought not to succumb to the _lesser_."--_Dillwyn's Reflections_, p.

128. "To such productions, _lesser_ composers must resort for

ideas."--_Gardiner's Music of Nature_, p. 413.

"The larger here, and there the _lesser_ lambs,

The new-fall'n young herd bleating for their dams."--_Pope_.

OBS. 7.--Our grammarians deny the comparison of many adjectives, from a

false notion that they are already superlatives. Thus W. Allen: "Adjectives

compounded with the Latin preposition _per_, are already superlative: as,

_perfect, perennial, permanent_, &c."--_Elements of E. Gram._, p. 52. In

reply to this, I would say, that nothing is really superlative, in English,

but what has the form and construction of the superlative; as, "The _most

permanent_ of all dyes." No word beginning with _per_, is superlative by

virtue of this Latin prefix. "Separate spirits, which are beings that have

_perfecter_ knowledge and greater happiness than we, must needs have also a

_perfecter_ way of communicating their thoughts than we have."--_Locke's

Essay_, B. ii, Ch. 24, §36, This mode of comparison is not now good, but it

shows that _perfect_ is no superlative. Thus Kirkham: "The _following_

adjectives, and _many others_, are _always in the superlative degree_;

because, by expressing a quality _in the highest degree_, they carry in

themselves a superlative signification: _chief, extreme, perfect, right,

wrong, honest, just, true, correct, sincere, vast, immense, ceaseless,

infinite, endless, unparalleled, universal, supreme, unlimited, omnipotent,

all-wise, eternal_." [183]--_Gram._, p. 73. So the Rev. David Blair: "The

words _perfect, certain, infinite, universal, chief, supreme, right, true,

extreme, superior_, and some others, which express a perfect and

superlative sense in themselves, do not admit of comparison."--_English

Gram._, p. 81. Now, according to Murray's definition, which Kirkham adopts,

none of these words can be at all in the superlative degree. On the

contrary, there are several among them, from which true superlatives are

frequently and correctly formed. Where are the positives which are here

supposed to be "_increased to the highest degree_?" Every real superlative

in our language, except _best_ and _worst, most_ and _least, first_ and

_last_, with the still more irregular word _next_, is a derivative, formed

from some other English word, by adding _est_ or _most_; as, _truest,

hindmost_. The propriety or impropriety of comparing the foregoing words,

or any of the "_many others_" of which this author speaks, is to be

determined according to their meaning, and according to the usage of good

writers, and not by the dictation of a feeble pedant, or upon the

supposition that if compared they would form "_double superlatives_."

OBS. 8.--_Chief_ is from the French word _chef_, the _head: chiefest_ is

therefore no more a double superlative than _headmost_: "But when the

_headmost_ foes appeared."--_Scott_. Nor are _chief_ and _chiefest_

equivalent terms: "Doeg an Edomite, the _chiefest_ of the herdsmen."--_1

Samuel_, xxi, 7. "The _chief_ of the herdsmen," would convey a different

meaning; it would be either the _leader_ of the herdsmen, or the _principal

part_ of them. _Chiefest_, however, has often been used where _chief_ would

have been better; as, "He sometimes denied admission to the _chiefest_

officers of the army."--_Clarendon_, let us look further at Kirkham's list

of _absolute_ "_superlatives_."

OBS. 9.--_Extreme_ is from the Latin superlative _extremus_, and of course

its literal signification is not really susceptible of increase. Yet

_extremest_ has been used, and is still used, by some of the very best

writers; as, "They thought it the _extremest_ of evils."--_Bacon_. "That on

the sea's _extremest_ border stood."--_Addison_. "How, to _extremest_

thrill of agony."--_Pollok_, B. viii, l. 270. "I go th' _extremest_ remedy

to prove."--_Dryden_. "In _extremest_ poverty."--_Swift_. "The hairy fool

stood on th' _extremest_ verge of the swift brook, augmenting it with

tears."--_Shak_. "While the _extremest_ parts of the earth were meditating

submission."--_Atterbury_. "His writings are poetical to the _extremest_

boundaries of poetry."--_Adams's Rhetoric_, i, 87. In prose, this

superlative is not now very common; but the poets still occasionally use

it, for the sake of their measure; and it ought to be noticed that the

simple adjective is _not partitive_. If we say, for the first example, "the

_extreme_ of evils;" we make the word a _noun_, and do not convey exactly

the same idea that is there expressed.

OBS. 10.--_Perfect_, if taken in its

strictest sense, must not be compared; but this word, like many others

which mean most in the positive, is often used with a certain latitude of

meaning, which renders its comparison by the adverbs not altogether

inadmissible; nor is it destitute of authority, as I have already shown.

(See Obs. 8th, p. 280.) "From the first rough sketches, to the _more

perfect_ draughts."--_Bolingbroke, on Hist._, p. 152. "The _most

perfect_."--_Adams's Lect. on Rhet._, i, 99 and 136; ii, 17 and 57:

_Blair's Lect._, pp. 20 and 399. "The most _beautiful and perfect_ example

of analysis."--_Lowth's Gram., Pref._, p. 10. "The plainest, _most

perfect_, and most useful manual."--_Bullions's E. Gram., Rev._, p. 7. "Our

sight is the _most perfect_, and the most delightful, of all our

senses."--_Addison, Spect._, No. 411; _Blair's Lect._, pp. 115 and 194;

_Murray's Gram._, i, 322. Here Murray anonymously copied Blair. "And to

render natives _more perfect_ in the knowledge of it."--_Campbell's Rhet._,

p. 171; _Murray's Gram._, p. 366. Here Murray copied Campbell, the most

accurate of all his masters. Whom did he copy when he said, "The phrases,

_more perfect_, and _most perfect_, are improper?"--_Octavo Gram._, p. 168.

But if these are wrong, so is the following sentence: "No poet has ever

attained a _greater perfection_ than Horace."--_Blair's Lect._, p. 398. And

also this: "Why are we brought into the world _less perfect_ in respect to

our nature?"--_West's Letters to a Young Lady_, p. 220.

OBS. 11.--_Right_ and _wrong_ are not often compared by good writers;

though we sometimes see such phrases as _more right_ and _more wrong_, and

such words as _rightest_ and _wrongest_: "'Tis always in the _wrongest_

sense."--_Butler_. "A method of attaining the _rightest_ and greatest

happiness."--PRICE: _Priestley's Gram._, p. 78. "It is no _more right_ to

steal apples, than it is to steal money."--_Webster's New Spelling-Book_,

p. 118. There are equivalent expressions which seem preferable; as, _more

proper, more erroneous, most proper, most erroneous_.

OBS. 12.--_Honest, just, true, correct, sincere_, and _vast_, may all be

compared at pleasure. Pope's Essay on Criticism is _more correct_ than any

thing this modest pretender can write; and in it, he may find the

comparative _juster_, the superlatives _justest, truest, sincerest_, and

the phrases, "_So vast_ a throng,"--"_So vast_ is art:" all of which are

contrary to his teaching. "_Unjuster_ dealing is used in buying than in

selling."--_Butler's Poems_, p. 163. "_Iniquissimam_ pacem _justissimo_

bello antefero."--_Cicero_. "I prefer the _unjustest_ peace before the

_justest_ war."--_Walker's English Particles_, p. 68. The poet Cowley used

the word _honestest_; which is not now very common. So Swift: "What

_honester_ folks never durst for their ears."--_The Yahoo's Overthrow_. So

Jucius: "The _honestest_ and ablest men."--_Letter XVIII_. "The sentence

would be _more correct_ in the following form."--_Murray's Gram._, i, p.

223. "Elegance is chiefly gained by studying the _correctest_

writers."--_Holmes's Rhetoric_, p. 27. _Honest_ and _correct_, for the sake

of euphony, require the adverbs; as, _more honest_, "_most

correct_."--_Lowth's Gram., Pref._, p. iv. _Vast, vaster, vastest_, are

words as smooth, as _fast, faster, fastest_; and _more vast_ is certainly

as good English as _more just_: "Shall mortal man be _more just_ than

God?"--_Job_, iv, 17. "Wilt thou condemn him that is _most just_?"--_Ib._,

xxxiv, 17. "More wise, more learn'd, _more just_, more-everything."--_Pope.

Universal_ is often compared by the adverbs, but certainly with no

reënforcement of meaning: as, "One of the _most universal_ precepts, is,

that the orator himself should feel the passion."--_Adams's Rhet._, i, 379.

"Though not _so universal_."--_Ib._, ii, 311. "This experience is general,

though not _so universal_, as the absence of memory in childhood."--_Ib._,

ii, 362. "We can suppose no motive which would _more universally_

operate."--_Dr. Blair's Rhet._, p. 55. "Music is known to have been _more

universally_ studied."--_Ib._, p. 123. "We shall not wonder, that his

grammar has been _so universally_ applauded."--_Walker's Recommendation in

Murray's Gram._, ii, 306. "The pronoun _it_ is the _most universal_ of all

the pronouns."--_Cutler's Gram._, p. 66. Thus much for one half of this

critic's twenty-two "_superlatives_." The rest are simply adjectives that

are not susceptible of comparison: they are not "superlatives" at all. A

man might just as well teach, that _good_ is a superlative, and not

susceptible of comparison, because "_there is none good but one_."

OBS. 13.--Pronominal adjectives, when their nouns are expressed, simply

relate to them, and have no modifications: except _this_ and _that_, which

form the plurals _these_ and _those_; and _much, many_, and a few others,

which are compared. Examples: "Whence hath _this_ man _this_ wisdom, and

_these_ mighty works?"--_Matt._, xiii, 54. "But _some_ man will say, How

are the dead raised up? and with _what_ body do they come?"--_1 Cor._, xv,

35. "The _first_ man Adam was made a living soul; the _last_ Adam was made

a quickening spirit."--_Ib._, 45. So, when one pronominal adjective

"precedes an other, the former _must be taken_ simply as an adjective;" as,

"Those suns are set. O rise _some other_ such!"

--_Cowper's Task_, B. ii, l. 252.

OBS. 14.--Pronominal adjectives, when their nouns are not expressed, may be

parsed as representing them in _person, number, gender_, and _case_; but

those who prefer it, may supply the ellipsis, and parse the adjective,

_simply as an adjective_. Example: "He threatens _many_, who injures

_one_."--_Kames_. Here it may be said, "_Many_ is a pronominal adjective,

meaning _many persons_; of the third person, plural number, masculine

gender, and objective case." Or those who will take the word simply as an

adjective, may say, "_Many_ is a pronominal adjective, of the positive

degree, compared _many, more, most_, and relating to _persons_ understood."

And so of "_one_," which represents, or relates to, _person_ understood.

Either say, "_One_ is a pronominal adjective, not compared," and give the

_three definitions_ accordingly; or else say, "One is a pronominal

adjective, relating to _person_ understood; of the third person, singular

number, masculine gender, and objective case," and give the _six

definitions_ accordingly.

OBS. 15.--_Elder_ for _older_, and _eldest_ for _oldest_, are still

frequently used; though the ancient positive, _eld_ for _old_, is now

obsolete. Hence some have represented _old_ as having a two-fold

comparison; and have placed it, not very properly, among the irregular

adjectives. The comparatives _elder_ and _better_, are often used as

_nouns_; so are the Latin comparatives _superior_ and _inferior, interior_

and _exterior, senior_ and _junior, major_ and _minor_: as, The _elder's_

advice,--One of the _elders_,--His _betters_,--Our _superiors_,--The

_interior_ of the country,--A handsome _exterior_,--Your _seniors_,--My

_juniors_,--A _major_ in the army,--He is yet a _minor_. The word _other_,

which has something of the nature of a comparative, likewise takes the form

of a noun, as before suggested; and, in that form, the reader, if he will,

may call it a noun: as, "What do ye more than _others_?"--_Bible_. "God in

thus much is bounded, that the evil hath he left unto _an other_; and _that

Dark Other_ hath usurped the evil which Omnipotence laid down."--_Tupper's

Book of Thoughts_, p. 45. Some call it a pronoun. But it seems to be

pronominal, merely by ellipsis of the noun after it; although, unlike a

mere adjective, it assumes the ending of the noun, to mark that ellipsis.

Perhaps therefore, the best explanation of it would be this: "'_Others_ is

a pronominal adjective, having the form of a noun, and put for _other men_;

in the third person, plural number, masculine gender, and nominative case."

The gender of this word varies, according to that of the contrasted term;

and the case, according to the relation it bears to other words. In the

following example, it is neuter and objective: "The fibres of this muscle

act as those of _others_."--_Cheyne_. Here, "as _those of others_," means,

"as _the fibres_ of _other muscles_."

OBS. 16.--"Comparatives and superlatives seem sometimes to part with their

relative nature, and only to retain their _intensive_, especially those

which are formed by the superlative adverb _most_; as, 'A _most learned_

man,'--'A _most brave_ man:' i. e. not the bravest or the most learned man

that ever was, but a man possessing bravery or learning in a very eminent

degree."--See _Alexander Murray's Gram._, p. 110. This use of the terms of

comparison is thought by some not to be very grammatical.

OBS. 17.--Contractions of the superlative termination _est_, as _high'st_

for _highest, bigg'st for biggest_, though sometimes used by the poets, are

always inelegant, and may justly be considered grammatically improper. They

occur most frequently in doggerel verse, like that of _Hudibras_; the

author of which work, wrote, in his droll fashion, not only the foregoing

monosyllables, but _learned'st_ for _most learned, activ'st_ for _most

active, desperat'st_ for _most desperate, epidemical'st_ for _most

epidemical_, &c.

"And _th' activ'st_ fancies share as loose alloys,

For want of equal weight to counterpoise."--_Butler's Poems_.

"Who therefore finds the _artificial'st_ fools

Have not been chang'd _i th'_ cradle, but the schools."--_Ib._, p. 143.

OBS. 18.--Nouns used adjectively are not varied in number to agree with the

nouns to which they relate, but what is singular or plural when used

substantively, is without number when taken as an adjective: as, "One of

the nine _sister_ goddesses."--_Webster's Dict., w. Muse_. "He has money in

a _savings_ bank." The latter mode of expression is uncommon, and the term

_savings-bank_ is sometimes compounded, but the hyphen does not really

affect the nature of the former word. It is doubtful, however, whether a

plural noun can ever properly assume the character of an adjective;

because, if it is not then really the same as the possessive case, it will

always be liable to be thought a false form of that case. What Johnson

wrote "_fullers earth_" and "_fullers thistle_;" Chalmers has "_fullers

earth_" and "_fuller's thistle_;" Webster, "_fuller's-earth_" and

"_fuller's-thistle_;" Ainsworth, "_fuller's earth_" and "_fuller's

thistle_;" Walker has only "_fullers-earth_;" Worcester,

"_fuller's-earth_;" Cobb, "_fullers earth_;" the Treasury of Knowledge,

"_fullers'-earth_." So unsettled is this part of our grammar, that in many

such cases it is difficult cult to say whether we ought to use the

apostrophe, or the hyphen, or both, or neither. To insert neither, unless

we make a close compound, is to use a plural noun adjectively; which form,

I think, is the most objectionable of all. See "_All souls

day_,"--"_All-fools-day_,"--"_All-saints'-day_," &c., in the dictionaries.

These may well be written "_All Souls' Day_" &c.

EXAMPLES FOR PARSING.

PRAXIS IV.--ETYMOLOGICAL.

_In the Fourth Praxis, it is required of the pupil--to distinguish and

define the different parts of speech, and the classes and modifications of

the_ ARTICLES, NOUNS, _and_ ADJECTIVES.

_The definitions to be given in the Fourth Praxis, are two for an article,

six for a noun, three for an adjective, and one for a pronoun, a verb, a

participle, an adverb, a conjunction, a preposition, or an interjection.

Thus_:--

EXAMPLE PARSED.

"The best and most effectual method of teaching grammar, is precisely that

of which the careless are least fond: teach learnedly, rebuking whatsoever

is false, blundering, or unmannerly."--_G. Brown_.

_The_ is the definite article. 1. An article is the word _the, an_, or _a_,

which we put before nouns to limit their signification. 2. The definite

article is _the_, which denotes some particular thing or things.

_Best_ is a common adjective, of the superlative degree; compared

irregularly, _good, better, best_. 1. An adjective is a word added to a

noun or pronoun, and generally expresses quality. 2. A common adjective is

any ordinary epithet, or adjective denoting quality or situation. 3. The

superlative degree is that which is _most_ or _least_ of all included with

it.

_And_, is a conjunction. 1. A conjunction is a word used to connect words

or sentences in constructing, and to show the dependence of the terms so

connected.

_Most_ is an adverb. 1. An adverb is a word added to a verb, a participle,

an adjective, or an other adverb; and generally expresses time, place,

degree, or manner.

_Effectual_ is a common adjective, compared by means of the adverbs;

_effectual, more effectual, most effectual_; or, _effectual, less

effectual, least effectual_. 1. An adjective is a word added to a noun or

pronoun, and generally expresses quality. 2. A common adjective is any

ordinary epithet, or adjective denoting quality or situation. 3. Those

adjectives which may be varied in sense, but not in form, are compared by

means of adverbs.

_Method_ is a common noun, of the third person, singular number, neuter

gender, and nominative case. 1. A noun is the name of any person, place, or

thing, that can be known or mentioned. 2. A common noun is the name of a

sort, kind, or class, of beings or things. 3. The third person, is that

which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number

is that which denotes but one. 5. The neuter gender is that which denotes

things that are neither male nor female. 6. The nominative case is that

form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a

finite verb.

_Of_ is a preposition. 1. A preposition is a word used to express some

relation of different things or thoughts to each other, and is generally

placed before a noun or a pronoun.

_Teaching_ is a participle. 1. A participle is a word derived from a verb,

participating the properties of a verb, and of an adjective or a noun; and

is generally formed by adding _ing, d_, or _ed_, to the verb.

_Grammar_ is a common noun, of the third person, singular number, neuter

gender, and objective case. 1. A noun is the name of any person, place or

thing, that can be known or mentioned. 2. A common noun is the name of a

sort, kind, or class, of beings or things. 3. The third person is that

which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number

is that which denotes but one. 5. The neuter gender is that which denotes

things that are neither male nor female. 6. The objective case is that form

or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the object of a verb,

participle, or preposition.

_Is_ is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies _to be, to act_, or _to

be acted upon_.

_Precisely_ is an adverb. 1. An adverb is a word added to a verb, a

participle, an adjective, or an other adverb; and generally expresses time,

place, degree, or manner.

_That_ is a pronominal adjective, not compared; standing for _that method_,

in the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case.

[See OBS. 14th,] 1. An adjective is a word added to a noun or pronoun, and

generally expresses quality. 2. A pronominal adjective is a definitive word

which may either accompany its noun or represent it understood. 3. The

third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4.

The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The neuter gender is

that which denotes things that are neither male nor female. 6. The

nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually

denotes the subject of a finite verb.

_Of_ is a preposition. 1. A preposition is a word used to express some

relation of different things or thoughts to each other, and is generally

placed before a noun or a pronoun.

_Which_ is a pronoun. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun.

_The_ is the definite article. 1. An article is the word _the, an_, or _a_,

which we put before nouns to limit their signification. 2. The definite

article is _the_, which denotes some particular thing or things.

_Careless_ is a common adjective, compared by means of the adverbs;

_careless, more careless, most careless_; or, _careless, less careless,

least careless_. 1. An adjective is a word added to a noun or pronoun, and

generally expresses quality. 2. A common adjective is any ordinary epithet,

or adjective denoting quality or situation. 3. Those adjectives which may

be varied in sense, but not in form, are compared by means of adverbs.

_Are_ is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies _to be, to act_, or _to

be acted upon_.

_Least_ is an adverb. 1. An adverb is a word added to a verb, a participle,

an adjective, or an other adverb; and generally expresses time, place,

degree, or manner.