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.
-- 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, _varre_. 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, _varre_.--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 a.n.a.logies of _songstress_, _children_, and _betseroro_ show that excess of expression frequently occurs.
The a.n.a.logy of _ma_ 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.
-- 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 _miok_ and _miog_, Norse; _much_, English. It is remarkable that this last form is not found in Anglo-Saxon, being replaced by _sare_, 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 circ.u.mstance: Sanskrit, _maha_; Latin, _mag-nus_; Greek, [Greek: megas] (_megas_).
There is in Moeso-Gothic the comparative form _maiza_, 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 _mero_, corresponding with _maiza_, Moeso-Gothic, and with _more_, English.
_Mickle_ (replaced by _great_) expresses size; _much_, quant.i.ty; _many_, number. The words _more_ and _most_ apply equally to number and quant.i.ty. I am not prepared either to a.s.sert or to deny that _many_, in Anglo-Saxon _maenig_, is from the same root with _much_. Of the word _ma_ notice has already been taken. Its later form, _moe_, occurs as late as Queen Elizabeth, with an adjectival as well as an adverbial sense.
-- 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, _lutzel_; Old Norse, _litill_. In these forms we have the letter _l_. Old High German Provincial, _luzic_; 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 unp.r.o.nounced. Even the word _liden_ the Danes have a tendency to p.r.o.nounce _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 _la.s.sa_ is the Gothic _lasivoza_, 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_.
-- 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 p.r.o.nounced. The fact that in the English language the words _father_ and _farther_ are, for the most part, p.r.o.nounced alike, is the key to the forms _near_ and _nearer_. {270}
-- 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, _fyrre_.
-- 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_.
-- 325. In Moeso-Gothic _spedists_ means _last_, and _spediza_=_later_. Of the word _spedists_ 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}
CHAPTER XI.
THE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE.
-- 326. The history of the superlative form, accurately parallel with what has been stated of the comparative, is as follows:--
In Sanskrit there is, 1. the form _tama_, 2. the form _ishta_; the first being the commonest. The same is the case in the Zend.
Each of these appears again in the Greek. The first, as [Greek: tat]
(_tat_), in [Greek: leptotatos] (_leptotatos_); the second, as [Greek: ist]
(_ist_), in [Greek: oiktistos] (_oiktistos_). For certain reasons, Grimm thinks that the tat stands for _tamt_, or _tant_.
In Latin, words like _intimus_, _extimus_, _ultimus_, preserve _im_; whilst _venustus_, _vetustus_, and _robustus_, are considered as positives, preserving the superlative form _-st_.
Just as in _inferus_ and _nuperus_, there was the ejection of the _t_ in the comparative _ter_, so in _infimus_, _nigerrimus_, &c., is there the ejection of the same letter in the superlative _tim_.
This gives us, as signs of the superlative, 1. _tm_; 2. _st_; 3. _m_, _t_ being lost; 4. _t_, _m_ being lost.
Of the first and last of these, there are amongst the _true_ superlatives, in English, no specimens.
Of the third, there is a specimen in the Anglo-Saxon _se forma_, _the first_, from the root _fore_, as compared with the Latin _primus_, and the Lithuanic _pirmas_.
The second, _st_ (_wise_, _wisest_), is the current termination.
Of the English superlatives, the only ones that demand a detailed examination are those that are generally despatched without difficulty; _viz._, the words in _most_; such as _midmost_, _foremost_, &c. The current view is the one adopted by Rask in his Anglo-Saxon Grammar (-- 133), _viz._, that they are {272} compound words, formed from simple ones by the addition of the superlative term _most_. Grimm"s view is opposed to this. In appreciating Grimm"s view, we must bear in mind the phenomena of _excess of expression_; at the same time we must not depart from the current theory without duly considering the fact stated by Rask; which is, that we have in Icelandic the forms _naermeir_, _fjaermeir_, &c., _nearer_, and _farther_, most unequivocally compounded of _near_ and _more_, and of _far_ and _more_.
Let especial notice be taken of the Moeso-Gothic forms _fruma_, first; _aftuma_, last; and of the Anglo-Saxon forms _forma_, _aftema_, aftermost; _ufema_, upmost; _hindema_, hindmost; _midema_, midmost; _innema_, inmost; _utema_, outmost; _siema_, last; _latema_, last; _niema_, nethermost.
These account for the _m_.
Add to this, with an excess of expression, the letters _st_. This accounts for the whole form, as _mid-m-ost_, _in-m-ost_, &c. Such is Grimm"s view.
_Furthermost_, _innermost_, _hindermost_.--Here there is a true addition of _most_, and an excess of inflection, a superlative form being added to a word in the comparative degree.
_Former._--Here, as stated before, a comparative sign is added to a word in the superlative degree.
-- 327. The combination _st_ occurs in other words besides those of the superlative degree; amongst others, in certain adverbs and prepositions, as _among_, _amongst_; _while_, _whilst_; _between_, _betwixt_.--Its power here has not been well explained.
{273}
CHAPTER XII.
OF THE CARDINAL NUMBERS.