Remarks on Irregular Adjectives
[Sidenote: _List I._]
164. (1) The word good has no comparative or superlative, but takes
the place of a positive to _better_ and _best_. There was an old
comparative _bet_, which has gone out of use; as in the sentence (14th
century), "Ich singe _bet_ than thu dest" (I sing better than thou
dost). The superlative I form was _betst_, which has softened to the
modern _best_.
(2) In Old English, evil was the positive to _worse_, _worst_; but
later _bad_ and _ill_ were borrowed from the Norse, and used as
positives to the same comparative and superlative. _Worser_ was once
used, a double comparative; as in Shakespeare,--
O, throw away the _worser_ part of it.--HAMLET.
(3) Little is used as positive to _less_, _least_, though from a
different root. A double comparative, _lesser_, is often used; as,--
We have it in a much _lesser_ degree.--MATTHEW ARNOLD.
Thrust the _lesser_ half by main force into the fists of Ho-ti.
--LAMB.
(4) The words much and many now express quantity; but in former
times _much_ was used in the sense of _large_, _great_, and was the
same word that is found in the proverb, "Many a little makes _a
mickle_." Its spelling has been _micel_, _muchel_, _moche_, _much_,
the parallel form _mickle_ being rarely used.
The meanings _greater_, _greatest_, are shown in such phrases as,--
The _more_ part being of one mind, to England we
sailed.--KINGSLEY.
The _most_ part kept a stolid indifference.--_Id._
The latter, meaning _the largest part_, is quite common.
(5) The forms elder, eldest, are earlier than _older_, _oldest_. A
few other words with the vowel _o_ had similar change in the
comparative and superlative, as _long_, _strong_, etc.; but these have
followed _old_ by keeping the same vowel _o_ in all the forms, instead
of _lenger_, _strenger_, etc., the old forms.
(6) and (7) Both nigh and near seem regular in Modern English,
except the form _next_; but originally the comparison was _nigh_,
_near_, _next_. In the same way the word high had in Middle English
the superlative _hexte_.
By and by the comparative _near_ was regarded as a positive form, and
on it were built a double comparative _nearer_, and the superlative
_nearest_, which adds _-est_ to what is really a comparative instead
of a simple adjective.
(8) These words also show confusion and consequent modification,
coming about as follows: further really belongs to another
series,--_forth_, _further_, _first_. First became entirely
detached from the series, and _furthest_ began to be used to follow
the comparative _further_; then these were used as comparative and
superlative of _far_.
The word far had formerly the comparative and superlative _farrer_,
_farrest_. In imitation of _further_, _furthest_, _th_ came into the
others, making the modern _farther_, _farthest_. Between the two sets
as they now stand, there is scarcely any distinction, except perhaps
_further_ is more used than _farther_ in the sense of _additional_;
as, for example,--
When that evil principle was left with no _further_ material to
support it.--HAWTHORNE.
(9) Latter and last are the older forms. Since _later_, _latest_,
came into use, a distinction has grown up between the two series.
_Later_ and _latest_ have the true comparative and superlative force,
and refer to time; _latter_ and _last_ are used in speaking of
succession, or series, and are hardly thought of as connected in
meaning with the word _late_.
(10) Hinder is comparative in form, but not in meaning. The form
_hindmost_ is really a double superlative, since the _m_ is for _-ma_,
an old superlative ending, to which is added _-ost_, doubling the
inflection. _Hind-er-m-ost_ presents the combination comparative +
superlative + superlative.
0 comments:
Post a Comment