"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 _p.r.o.noun adjectives_, ["p.r.o.nouns adjective," or "p.r.o.nominal 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 p.r.o.nouns 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 cla.s.s 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 a.n.a.logies 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 a.s.suming _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, _n.o.ble-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 _G.o.d-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 G.o.d, 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 cla.s.sing and defining them otherwise than simply as the comparative and the superlative. The a.s.sumption 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 a.s.sertions, 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 s.p.a.ce. 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 pa.s.sage, 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 _a.s.suming_, &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 repet.i.tion 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 a.s.sumed 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,"--"_Praestantior 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, quae es _miserrima_, quod ipsa calamitas communis est utriusque nostrum, 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 Inst.i.tutes 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, surpa.s.sed 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 ill.u.s.trated. (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 lat.i.tude 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 a.s.sumption, 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 G.o.d is _wiser_ than men; and the weakness of G.o.d 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 _unsurpa.s.sed 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 unsurpa.s.sable, 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 quant.i.ties 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 Cla.s.sical 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 a.s.sertion 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 d.i.c.k"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 d.i.c.k"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."--_a.n.a.lytical 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_ s.e.x."--_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 pa.s.sage, 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 h.e.l.l; myself am h.e.l.l; And in the lowest _depth_, a lower deep, Still threat"ning to devour me, opens wide, To which the h.e.l.l 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 h.e.l.l 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 h.e.l.l, 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 G.o.d, 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.