CHAPTER X.

THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE.

s. 310. The proper preliminary to the study of the comparative and quasi-comparative forms in English is the history of the inflection or inflections by which they are expressed. There is no part of our grammar where it is more necessary to extend our view beyond the common limit of the Gothic stock of languages, than here.

In the Sanskrit language the signs of the comparative degree are two:--1. _-tara_, as _punya_=_pure_; _punya-tara_=_purer_; 2. _-[^i]yas_, as _k['s]ipra_=_swift_; _k['s][^e]p[^i]yas_=_swifter_. Of these the first is the most in use.

The same forms occur in the Zend; as _husko_=_dry_; _husk[^o]-tara_=_drier_; _-[^i]yas_, however, is changed into _-is_.

In the classical languages we have the same forms. 1. in _uter_, _neuter_, _alter_, [Greek: poteros], [Greek: leptoteros]. 2. In the adverb _magis_, Lat. In Bohemian and Polish, _-ssj_ and _-szy_ correspond with the Sanskrit forms _-[^i]yas_.

Thus we collect, that, expressive of the comparative degree, there are two parallel forms; _viz._, the form in _tr_, and the form in _s_; of which one is the most in use in one language, and the other in another.

s. 311. Before we consider the Gothic forms of the comparative, it may be advisable to note two changes to which it is liable. 1. The change of _s_ into _r_; the Latin word _meliorem_ being supposed to have been originally _meliosem_, and the _s_ in _nigrius_, _firmius_, &c., being considered not so much the sign of the neuter gender as the old comparative _s_ in its oldest form. 2. The ejection of _t_, as in the Latin words _inferus_, _superus_, compared with the Greek [Greek: leptoteros] (_leptoteros_). {264}

s. 312. Now, of the two parallel forms, the Gothic one was the form _s_; the words _other_ and _whether_ only preserving the form _tr_. And here comes the application of the remarks that have just gone before. The vast majority of our comparatives end in _r_, and so seem to come from _tr_ rather than from _s_. This, however, is not the case. The _r_ in words like _sweeter_ is derived, not from _tar_--_t_, but from _s_, changed into _r_. In Moeso-Gothic the comparative ended in _s_ (_z_); in Old High German the _s_ has become _r_: Moeso-Gothic _aldiza_, _batiza_, _sutiza_; Old High German, _altiro_, _betsiro_, _suatsiro_; English, _older_, _better_, _sweeter_.

The importance of a knowledge of the form in _s_ is appreciated when we learn that, even in the present English, there are vestiges of it.

s. 313. _Comparison of adverbs._--_The sun shines bright._--Herein the word _bright_ means _brightly_; and although the use of the latter word would have been the more elegant, the expression is not ungrammatical; the word _bright_ being looked upon as an adjectival adverb.

_The sun shines to-day brighter than it did yesterday, and to-morrow it will shine brightest._--Here also the sense is adverbial; from whence we get the fact, that adverbs take degrees of comparison.

Now let the root _mag-_, as in _magnus_, [Greek: megas], and _mikil_ (Norse), give the idea of greatness. In the Latin language we have from it two comparative forms: 1. the adjectival comparative _major_=_greater_; 2. the adverbial comparative _magis_=_more_ (_plus_). The same takes place in Moeso-Gothic: _maiza_ means _greater_, and is adjectival; _mais_ means _more_, and is adverbial. The Anglo-Saxon forms are more instructive still; _e.g._, _thaes the m[^a]_=_all the more_, _thaes the bet_=_all the better_, have a comparative sense, but not a comparative form, the sign _r_ being absent. Now, compared with _major_, and subject to the remarks that have gone before, the Latin _magis_ is the older form. With _m[^a]_ and _bet_, compared with _more_ and _better_, this may or may not be the case. _M[^a]_ and _bet_ may each be one of two forms; 1. a positive used in a comparative sense; 2. a true comparative, which has lost {265} its termination. The present section has been written not for the sake of exhausting the subject, but to show that in the comparative degree there were often two forms; of which one, the adverbial, was either more antiquated, or more imperfect than the other: a fact bearing upon some of the forthcoming trains of etymological reasoning.

s. 314. _Change of vowel._--By reference to Rask's Grammar, s. 128, it may be seen that in the Anglo-Saxon there were, for the comparative and superlative degrees, two forms; _viz._ _-or_ and _-re_, and _-ost_ and _-este_, respectively.

By reference to p. 159 of the present volume, it may be seen that the fulness or smallness of a vowel in a given syllable may work a change in the nature of the vowel in a syllable adjoining. In the Anglo-Saxon the following words exhibit a change of vowel.

_Positive._ _Comparative._ _Superlative._

Lang, Lengre, Lengest. _Long._ Strang, Strengre, Strengest. _Strong._ Geong, Gyngre, Gyngest. _Young._ Sceort, Scyrtre, Scyrtest. _Short._ He['a]h, Hyrre, Hyhst. _High._ Eald, Yldre, Yldest. _Old._

Of this change, the word last quoted is a still-existing specimen, as _old_, _elder_ and _older_, _eldest_ and _oldest_. Between the two forms there is a difference in meaning, _elder_ being used as a substantive, and having a plural form, _elders_.

s. 315. The previous section has stated that in Anglo-Saxon there were two forms for the comparative and superlative degrees, one in _-re_ and _-este_, the other in _-or_ and _-ost_, respectively. Now the first of these was the form taken by adjectives; as _se scearpre sweord_=_the sharper sword_, and _se scearpeste sweord_=_the sharpest sword_. The second, on the other hand, was the form taken by adverbs; as, _se sweord scyrdh scearpor_=_the sword cuts sharper_, and _se sweord scyrdh scearpost_=_the sword cuts sharpest_.

The adjectival form has, as seen above, a tendency to make the vowel of the preceding syllable small: _old_, _elder_. {266}

The adverbial form has a tendency to make the vowel of the preceding syllable full.

Of this effect on the part of the adverbial form the adverbial comparative _rather_ is a specimen. We pronounce the _a_ as in _father_, or full. Nevertheless, the positive form is small, the _a_ being pronounced as the _a_ in _fate_.

The word _rather_ means _quick_, _easy_=the classical root [Greek: rhad-] in [Greek: rhadios]. What we do _quickly_ and _willingly_ we do _preferably_. Now if the word _rather_ were an adjective, the vowel of the comparative would be sounded as the _a_ in _fate_. As it is, however, it is adverbial, and as such is properly sounded as the _a_ in _father_.

The difference between the action of the small vowel in _-re_, and of the full in _-or_, effects this difference.

s. 316. _Excess of expression._--Of this two samples have already been given: 1. in words like _songstress_; 2. in words like _children_. This may be called _excess of expression_; the feminine gender, in words like _songstress_, and the plural number, in words like _children_, being expressed twice over. In the vulgarism _betterer_ for _better_, and in the antiquated forms _worser_ for _worse_, and _lesser_ for _less_, we have, in the case of the comparatives, as elsewhere, an excess of expression. In the Old High German we have the forms _betser[^o]ro_, _m[^e]r[^o]ro_, _[^e]rerera_=_better_, _more_, _ere_.

s. 317. _Better._--Although in the superlative form _best_ there is a slight variation from the strict form of that degree, the word _better_ is perfectly regular. So far, then, from truth are the current statements that the comparison of the words _good_, _better_, and _best_ is irregular. The inflection is not irregular, but defective. As the statement that applies to _good_, _better_, and _best_ applies to many words besides, it will be well in this place, once for all, to exhibit it in full.

s. 318. _Difference between a sequence in logic and a sequence in etymology._--The ideas or notions of _thou_, _thy_, _thee_, are ideas between which there is a metaphysical or logical connexion. The train of such ideas may be said to form a sequence and such a sequence may be called a logical one.

The forms (or words) _thou_, _thy_, _thee_, are forms or words {267} between which there is a formal or an etymological connexion. A train of such words may be called a sequence, and such a sequence may be called an etymological one.

In the case of _thou_, _thy_, _thee_, the etymological sequence tallies with the logical one.

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

In the case of _I_, _my_, _me_, the etymological sequence does _not_ tally (or tallies imperfectly) with the logical one.

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

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

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

To return, however, to the word _better_; no absolute positive degree is found in any of the allied languages, and in none of the allied languages is there found any comparative form of _good_. Its root occurs in the following adverbial forms: Moeso-Gothic, _bats_; Old High German, _pats_; Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon, _bet_; Middle High German, _baz_; Middle Dutch, _bat_, _bet_.--Grimm, D. G. iii. 604.

s. 319. _Worse._--Moeso-Gothic, _vairsiza_; Old High German, _wirsiro_; Middle High German, _wirser_; Old Saxon, _wirso_; Anglo-Saxon, _vyrsa_; Old Norse, _verri_; Danish, _vaerre_; and Swedish, _vaerre_. Such are the adjectival forms. The adverbial forms are Moeso-Gothic, _vairs_; Old High German, _virs_; Middle High German, _wirs_; Anglo-Saxon, _vyrs_: Old Norse, _verr_; Danish, _vaerre_; Swedish, _vaerre_.--Grimm, D. G. iii. 606. Whether the present form in English be originally adjectival or adverbial is indifferent; since, as soon as the final _a_ of _vyrsa_ was omitted, the two words would be the same. The forms, however, _vairsiza_, _wirser_, _worse_, and _verri_, make the word one of the most perplexing in the language. {268}

If the form _worse_ be taken without respect to the rest, the view of the matter is simply that in the termination _s_ we have a remnant of the Moeso-Gothic forms, like _sutiza_, &c., in other words, the old comparative in _s_.

_Wirser_ and _vairsiza_ traverse this view. They indicate the likelihood of the _s_ being no sign of the degree, but a part of the original word. Otherwise the _r_ in _wirser_, and the _z_ in _vairsiza_, denote an excess of expression.

The analogies of _songstress_, _children_, and _betser[^o]ro_ show that excess of expression frequently occurs.

The analogy of _m[^a]_ and _bet_ show that _worse_ may possibly be a positive form.

The word _verri_ indicates the belief that the _s_ is no part of the root.

Finally the euphonic processes of the Scandinavian languages tell us that, even had there been an _s_, it would, in all probability, have been ejected. These difficulties verify the statement that the word _worse_ is one of the most perplexing in the language.

s. 320. _Much_, _more_.--Here, although the words be unlike each other, there is a true etymological relation. Moeso-Gothic, _mikils_; Old High German, _mihhil_; Old Saxon, _mikil_; Anglo-Saxon, _mycel_; Old Norse, _mickill_; Scotch, _muckle_ and _mickle_ (all ending in _l_): Danish, _megen_, m.; _meget_, n.; Swedish, _mycken_, m.; _myckett_, n. (where no _l_ is found). Such is the adjectival form of the positive, rarely found in the Modern Gothic languages, being replaced in German by _gross_, in English by _great_, in Danish by _stor_. The adverbial forms are _mioek_ and _mioeg_, Norse; _much_, English. It is remarkable that this last form is not found in Anglo-Saxon, being replaced by _s[^a]re_, Germ, _sehr_.--Grimm, D. G. iii. 608.

The adverbial and the Norse forms indicate that the _l_ is no part of the original word. Comparison with other Indo-European languages gives us the same circumstance: Sanskrit, _maha_; Latin, _mag-nus_; Greek, [Greek: megas] (_megas_).

There is in Moeso-Gothic the comparative form _m['a]iza_, and there is no objection to presuming a longer form, _magiza_; since in the Greek form [Greek: meizon], compared with [Greek: megas], there {269} is a similar disappearance of the _g_. In the Old High German we find _m[^e]ro_, corresponding with _m['a]iza_, Moeso-Gothic, and with _more_, English.

_Mickle_ (replaced by _great_) expresses size; _much_, quantity; _many_, number. The words _more_ and _most_ apply equally to number and quantity. I am not prepared either to assert or to deny that _many_, in Anglo-Saxon _maenig_, is from the same root with _much_. Of the word _m[^a]_ notice has already been taken. Its later form, _moe_, occurs as late as Queen Elizabeth, with an adjectival as well as an adverbial sense.

s. 321. _Little_, _less_.--Like _much_ and _more_, these words are in an etymological relation to each other. Moeso-Gothic, _leitils_; Old High German, _luzil_; Old Saxon, _luttil_; Anglo-Saxon, _lytel_; Middle High German, _luetzel_; Old Norse, _l[^i]till_. In these forms we have the letter _l_. Old High German Provincial, _luz['i]c_; Old Frisian, _litich_; Middle Dutch, _luttik_; Swedish, _liten_; Danish, _liden_.--Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 611. From these we find that the _l_ is either no part of the original word, or one that is easily got rid of. In Swedish and Danish there are the forms _lille_ and _liden_; whilst in the neuter form, _lidt_, the _d_ is unpronounced. Even the word _liden_ the Danes have a tendency to pronounce _leen_. My own notion is that these changes leave it possible for _less_ to be derived from the root of _little_. According to Grimm, the Anglo-Saxon _laessa_ is the Gothic _lasiv[^o]za_, the comparative of _lasivs_=_weak_.--Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 611. In Anglo-Saxon there was the adjectival form _laessa_, and the adverbial form _laes_. In either case we have the form _s_.

s. 322. _Near_, _nearer_.--Anglo-Saxon, _neah_; comparative, _nearre_, _near_, _nyr_; superlative, _nyhst_, _nehst_. Observe, in the Anglo-Saxon positive and superlative, the absence of the _r_. This shows that the English positive _near_ is the Anglo-Saxon comparative _nearre_, and that in the secondary comparative _nearer_, we have an excess of expression. It may be, however, that the _r_ in _near_ is a mere point of orthography, and that it is not pronounced. The fact that in the English language the words _father_ and _farther_ are, for the most part, pronounced alike, is the key to the forms _near_ and _nearer_. {270}

s. 323. _Farther._--Anglo-Saxon _feor_, _fyrre_, _fyrrest_. The _th_ seems euphonic, inserted by the same process that gives the [delta] in [Greek: andros].

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

s. 324. _Former._--A comparative formed from the superlative; _forma_ being such. Consequently, an instance of excess of expression, combined with irregularity.

Languages have a comparative without a superlative degree; no _language has a superlative degree without having also a comparative one_.

s. 325. In Moeso-Gothic _sp[^e]dists_ means _last_, and _sp[^e]diza_=_later_. Of the word _sp[^e]dists_ two views may be taken. According to one it is the positive degree with the addition of _st_; according to the other, it is the comparative degree with the addition only of _t_. Now, Grimm and others lay down as a rule, that the superlative is formed, not directly from the positive, but indirectly through the comparative.

With the exception of _worse_ and _less_, all the English comparatives end in _r_: yet no superlative ends in _rt_, the form being, not _wise_, _wiser_, _wisert_, but _wise_, _wiser_, _wisest_. This fact, without invalidating the notion just laid down, gives additional importance to the comparative forms in _s_; since it is from these, before they have changed to _r_, that we must suppose the superlatives to have been derived. The theory being admitted, we can, by approximation, determine the comparative antiquity of the superlative degree. It was introduced into the Indo-European tongues after the establishment of the comparative, and before the change of _-s_ into _-r_. I give no opinion as to the truth of this theory.

* * * * *

{271}