The Grammar of English Grammars, Goold Brown [ebook reader for manga txt] 📗

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