Chapter 98

THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE.

§ 240. There are four leading facts here,--

1. _The older form in -s._ In English we say old-er, bett-er, sweet-er; in Old High German they similarly said, alt-iro, bets-iro, suats-iro; but in Moeso-Gothic the forms were ald-iza, bat-iza, sut-iza.

2. _Adverbs_ are susceptible of comparison; e.g.--_Come as soon as you can, but do not come sooner than is convenient_.

3. The Anglo-Saxon comparison of the adverbs is different from that of the adjectives; there being one form in -re and -este, another in -or and -ost respectively. Now the first of these was the form taken by adjectives: as _se scearp-re sweord_ = _the sharper sword_, and _se scearp-este sword_ = _the sharpest sword_. The second, on the other hand, was the form taken by adverbs: as, _se sweord scyrð scearp-or_ = _the sword cuts sharper_, and _se sweord scyrð scearp-ost_ = _the sword cuts sharpest_.

4. In the Anglo-Saxon, the following words exhibit a change of vowel.

_Positive._ _Comparative._ _Superlative._

Lang, Lengre, Lengest. _Long._ Strang, Strengre, Strengest. _Strong._ Geong, Gyngre, Gyngest. _Young._ Sceort, Scyrtre, Scyrtest. _Short._ Heáh, Hyrre, Hyhst. _High._ Eald, Yldre, Yldest. _Old._

§ 241. Now the fourth of these facts explains the present forms _elder_ and _eldest_, the comparatives and superlative of _old_, besides which there are the regular forms _old-er_ and _old-est_; between which there is, however, a difference in meaning--_elder_ being used as a substantive, and having a plural form, _elders_.

§ 242. The abverbial forms in -or and -ost, as compared with the adjectival in -re, and -este explain the form _rather_. This rhymes to _father_; the a being full. Nevertheless, the positive form is _rather_ meaning _quick, easy_ = the classical root [Greek: rhad-] in [Greek: rhadios]. What we do _quickly_ and _willingly_ we do _preferably_. Now if the word _rather_ were an adjective, the vowel of the comparative would be sounded as the a in _fate_, as it is, however, it is abverbial, and as such is properly sounded as the a in _father_.

The difference between the action of the small vowel in -re, and of the full in -or effects this difference, since o being a full vowel, it has the effect of making the a full also.

§ 243. The old form in -s will be considered, after notice has been taken of what may be called--

§ 244. _Excess of expression._--Of this two samples have already been given: 1. in words like _songstress_; 2. in words like _children_. This may be called _excess of expression_; the feminine gender, in words like _songstress_, and the plural number, in words like _children_, being expressed twice over. In the vulgarism _betterer_ for _better_, and in the antiquated forms _worser_ for _worse_, and _lesser_ for _less_, we have, in the case of the comparatives, as elsewhere, an excess of expression. In the old High German we have the forms _betsërôro_, _mêrôro_, _êrërëra_ = _better_, _more_, _ere_.

§ 245. _Better_.--Although in the superlative form _best_ there is a slight variation from the strict form of that degree, the word _better_ is perfectly regular. So far, then, from truth are the current statements that the comparison of the words _good, better_, and _best_ is irregular. The inflection is not irregular, but defective. As the statement that applies to _good_, _better_, and _best_ applies to many words besides, it will be well in this place, once for all, to exhibit it in full.

§ 246. _Difference between a sequence in logic and a sequence in etymology._--The ideas or notions of _thou, thy, thee_, are ideas between which there is a metaphysical or logical connexion. The train of such ideas may be said to form a sequence, and such a sequence may be called a logical one.

The words _thou, thy, thee_, are words between which there is a _formal_ or an _etymological_ connexion. A train of such words may be called a sequence, and such a sequence may be called an etymological one.

In the case of _thou, thy, thee_, the etymological sequence tallies with the _logical_ one.

The ideas of _I_, _my_, and _me_ are also in a logical sequence: but the forms _I_, _my_, and _me_ are not altogether in an etymological one.

In the case of _I, my, me_, the etymological sequence does _not_ tally (or tallies imperfectly) with the logical one.

This is only another way of saying that between the words _I_ and _me_ there is no connexion in etymology.

It is also only another way of saying, that, in the oblique cases, _I_, and, in the nominative case, _me_, are _defective_.

Now the same is the case with _good, better_, _bad, worse_, &c. _Good_ and _bad_ are defective in the comparative and superlative degrees; _better_ and _worse_ are defective in the positive; whilst between _good_ and _better_, _bad_ and _worse_, there is a sequence in logic, but no sequence in etymology.

§ 247. To return, however, to the word _better_; no absolute positive degree is found in any of the allied languages, and in none of the allied languages is there found any comparative form of _good_. Its root occurs in the following adverbial forms: Moeso-Gothic, _bats_; Old High German, _pats_; Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon, _bet_; Middle High German, _baz_; Middle Dutch, _bat_, _bet_.

§ 248. _Worse_.--This word is one of two things.

1. It is a positive form with a comparative sense; in which case s is part of the root.

2. It is a comparative degree from the positive form wor- (vair-, wir-, vyr-), in which case s is the s of the Old Moeso-Gothic inflexion preserved in this single word.

§ 249. _More_.--In Anglo-Saxon this is _mâ_; in the English of the reign of Elizabeth it is _moe_; and in certain provincial dialects it is _mo_, at the present time.

Notwithstanding this, i.e., the form being positive, the _power_ of the word has always been comparative, and meant _more_ rather than _much_, or _many_.

§ 250. _Less_.--In Anglo-Saxon _læssa_ and _læs_. Here there is no _unequivocal_ sign of the comparative degree; what, then, is the nature of the word? Is it a positive form with a comparative power like _moe_? or is it an old comparative in -s? This is undecided. What does it come from? Grimm derives it from the Moeso-Gothic root _lasiv_ = _weak_. His doctrine is doubtful. I cannot but believe that it comes from the same root as _litt-le_; where the old Frisian form _litich_, shows that the -l is no essential part of the word, and the Danish form _lille_ gets rid of the t. Still the word is difficult; indeed it is unexplained.

§ 251. _Near_, _nearer_.--Anglo-Saxon, _neah_; comparative, _nearre_, _near_, _nyr_; superlative, _nyhst_, _nehst_. Observe, in the Anglo-Saxon positive and superlative, the absence of the r. This shows that the English positive _near_ is the Anglo-Saxon comparative _nearre_, and that in the secondary comparative _nearer_, we have an _excess of expression_. It may be, however, that the r in _near_ is a mere point of orthography, and that it is not pronounced; since, in the English language the words _father_ and _farther_ are, for the most part, pronounced alike.

§ 252. _Farther_.--Anglo-Saxon _feor, fyrre, fyrrest_. The th seems euphonic, inserted by the same process that gives the [delta] in [Greek: andros], from [Greek: anêr] = man.

_Further_.--Confounded with _farther_, although in reality from a different word, _fore_. Old High German, _furdir_; New High German, _der vordere_; Anglo-Saxon, _fyrðre_.

§ 253. _Former_.--A comparative formed from the superlative; _forma_ being such. Consequently, an instance of excess of expression, combined with irregularity.

§ 254. In Moeso-Gothic _spêdists_ means _last_, and _spêdiza_ = _later_. Of the word _spêdists_ two views may be taken. According to one it is the positive degree with the addition of st; according to the other, it is the comparative degree with the addition only of t. Now, Grimm and others lay down as a rule, that the superlative is formed, not directly from the positive, but indirectly through the comparative.

With the exception of _worse_ and _less_, all the English comparatives end in -r: yet no superlative ends in -rt, the form being, not _wise, wiser, wisert_, but _wise, wiser, wisest_. This fact, without invalidating the notion just laid down, gives additional importance to the comparative forms in s; since it is from these, before they have changed to r, that we must suppose the superlatives to have been derived. The theory being admitted, we can, by approximation, determine the comparative antiquity of the superlative degree. It was introduced _after_ the establishment of the comparative, and _before_ the change of -s into -r.

* * * * *