Chapter IV Adjectives.
An Adjective is a word added to a noun or pronoun, and generally expresses quality: as, A wise man; a new book. You two are diligent.
Observations.
OBS. 1.—Adjectives have been otherwise called attributes, attributives, qualities, adnouns; but none of these names is any better than the common one. Some writers have classed adjectives with verbs; because, with a neuter verb for the copula, they often form logical predicates: as, "Vices are contagious." The Latin grammarians usually class them with nouns; consequently their nouns are divided into nouns substantive and nouns adjective. With us, substantives are nouns; and adjectives form a part of speech by themselves. This is generally acknowledged to be a much better distribution. Adjectives cannot with propriety be called nouns, in any language; because they are not the names of the qualities which they signify. They must be added to nouns or pronouns in order to make sense. But if, in a just distribution of words, the term "adjective nouns" is needless and improper, the term "adjective pronouns" is, certainly, not less so: most of the words which Murray and others call by this name, are not pronouns, but adjectives.
OBS. 2.—The noun, or substantive, is a name, which makes sense of itself. The adjective is an adjunct to the noun or pronoun. It is a word added to denote quality, situation, quantity, number, form, tendency, or whatever else may characterize and distinguish the thing or things spoken of. Adjectives, therefore, are distinguished from nouns by their relation to them; a relation corresponding to that which qualities bear to things: so that no part of speech is more easily discriminated than the adjective. Again: English adjectives, as such, are all indeclinable. When, therefore, any words usually belonging to this class, are found to take either the plural or the possessive form, like substantive nouns, they are to be parsed as nouns. To abbreviate expression, we not unfrequently, in this manner, convert adjectives into nouns. Thus, in grammar, we often speak of nominatives, possessives, or objectives, meaning nouns or pronouns of the nominative, the possessive, or the objective case; of positives, comparatives, or superlatives, meaning adjectives of the positive, the comparative, or the superlative degree; of infinitives, subjunctives, or imperatives, meaning verbs of the infinitive, the subjunctive, or the imperative mood; and of singulars, plurals, and many other such things, in the same way. So a man's superiors or inferiors are persons superior or inferior to himself. His betters are persons better than he. Others are any persons or things distinguished from some that are named or referred to; as, "If you want enemies, excel others; if you want friends, let others excel you."—Lacon. All adjectives thus taken substantively, become nouns, and ought to be parsed as such, unless this word others is to be made an exception, and called a "pronoun."
"Th' event is fear'd; should we again provoke
Our stronger, some worse way his wrath may find."
—Milton, P. L., B. ii, l. 82.
OBS. 3.—Murray says, "Perhaps the words former and latter may be properly ranked amongst the demonstrative pronouns, especially in many of their applications. The following sentence may serve as an example: 'It was happy for the state, that Fabius continued in the command with Minutius: the former's phlegm was a check upon the latter's vivacity.'"—Gram., 8vo, p. 57. This I take to be bad English. Former and latter ought to be adjectives only; except when former means maker. And, if not so, it is too easy a way of multiplying pronouns, to manufacture two out of one single anonymous sentence. If it were said, "The deliberation of the former was a seasonable chock upon the fiery temper of the latter" the words former and latter would seem to me not to be pronouns, but adjectives, each relating to the noun commander understood after it.
OBS. 4.—The sense and relation of words in sentences, as well as their particular form and meaning, must be considered in parsing, before the learner can say, with certainty, to what class they belong. Other parts of speech, and especially nouns and participles, by a change in their construction, may become adjectives. Thus, to denote the material of which a thing is formed, we very commonly make the name of the substantive an adjective to that of the thing: as, A gold chain, a silver spoon, a glass pitcher, a tin basin, an oak plank, a basswood slab, a whalebone rod. This construction is in general correct, whenever the former word may be predicated of the latter; as, "The chain is gold."—"The spoon is silver." But we do not write gold beater for goldbeater, or silver smith for silversmith; because the beater is not gold, nor is the smith silver. This principle, however, is not universally observed; for we write snowball, whitewash, and many similar compounds, though the ball is snow and the wash is white; and linseed oil, or Newark cider, may be a good phrase, though the former word cannot well be predicated of the latter. So in the following examples: "Let these conversation tones be the foundation of public pronunciation."—Blair's Rhet., p. 334. "A muslin flounce, made very full, would give a very agreeable flirtation air."—POPE: Priestley's Gram., p. 79.
"Come, calm Content, serene and sweet,
O gently guide my pilgrim feet
To find thy hermit cell."—Barbauld.
OBS. 5.—Murray says, "Various nouns placed before other nouns assume the nature of adjectives: as, sea fish, wine vessel, corn field, meadow ground, &c."—Octavo Gram., p. 48. This is, certainly, very lame instruction. If there is not palpable error in all his examples, the propriety of them all is at least questionable; and, to adopt and follow out their principle, would be, to tear apart some thousands of our most familiar compounds. "Meadow ground" may perhaps be a correct phrase, since the ground is meadow; it seems therefore preferable to the compound word meadow-ground. What he meant by "wine vessel" is doubtful: that is, whether a ship or a cask, a flagon or a decanter. If we turn to our dictionaries, Webster has sea-fish and wine-cask with a hyphen, and cornfield without; while Johnson and others have corn-field with a hyphen, and seafish without. According to the rules for the figure of words, we ought to write them seafish, winecask, cornfield. What then becomes of the thousands of "adjectives" embraced in the "&c." quoted above?
OBS. 6.—The pronouns he and she, when placed before or prefixed to nouns merely to denote their gender, appear to be used adjectively; as, "The male or he animals offered in sacrifice."—Wood's Dict., w. Males. "The most usual term is he or she, male or female, employed as an adjective: as, a he bear, a she bear; a male elephant, a female elephant."—Churchill's Gram., p. 69. Most writers, however, think proper to insert a hyphen in the terms here referred to: as, he-bear, she-bear, the plurals of which are he-bears and she-bears. And, judging by the foregoing rule of predication, we must assume that this practice only is right. In the first example, the word he is useless; for the term "male animals" is sufficiently clear without it. It has been shown in the third chapter, that he and she are sometimes used as nouns; and that, as such, they may take the regular declension of nouns, making the plurals hes and shes. But whenever these words are used adjectively to denote gender, whether we choose to insert the hyphen or not, they are, without question, indeclinable, like other adjectives. In the following example, Sanborn will have he to be a noun in the objective case; but I consider it rather, to be an adjective, signifying masculine:
"(Philosophy, I say, and call it He; For, whatsoe'er the painter's fancy be, It a male-virtue seems to me.")—Cowley, Brit. Poets, Vol. ii, p. 54.
OBS. 7.—Though verbs give rise to many adjectives, they seldom, if ever, become such by a mere change of construction. It is mostly by assuming an additional termination, that any verb is formed into an adjective: as in teachable, moveable, oppressive, diffusive, prohibitory. There are, however, about forty words ending in ate, which, without difference of form, are either verbs or adjectives; as, aggregate, animate, appropriate, articulate, aspirate, associate, complicate, confederate, consummate, deliberate, desolate, effeminate, elate, incarnate, intimate, legitimate, moderate, ordinate, precipitate, prostrate, regenerate, reprobate, separate, sophisticate, subordinate. This class of adjectives seems to be lessening. The participials in ed, are superseding some of them, at least in popular practice: as, contaminated, for contaminate, defiled; reiterated, for reiterate, repeated; situated, for situate, placed; attenuated, for attenuate, made thin or slender. Devote, exhaust, and some other verbal forms, are occasionally used by the poets, in lieu of the participial forms, devoted, exhausted, &c.
OBS. 8.—Participles, which have naturally much resemblance to this part of speech, often drop their distinctive character, and become adjectives. This is usually the case whenever they stand immediately before the nouns to which they relate; as, A pleasing countenance, a piercing eye, an accomplished scholar, an exalted station. Many participial adjectives are derivatives formed from participles by the negative prefix un, which reverses the meaning of the primitive word; as, undisturbed, undivided, unenlightened. Most words of this kind differ of course from participles, because there are no such verbs as to undisturb, to undivide, &c. Yet they may be called participial adjectives, because they have the termination, and embrace the form, of participles. Nor should any participial adjective be needlessly varied from the true orthography of the participle: a distinction is, however, observed by some writers, between past and passed, staid and stayed; and some old words, as drunken, stricken, shotten, rotten, now obsolete as participles, are still retained as adjectives. This sort of words will be further noticed in the chapter on participles.
OBS. 9.—Adverbs are generally distinguished from adjectives, by the form, as well as by the construction, of the words. Yet, in instances not a few, the same word is capable of being used both adjectively and adverbially. In these cases, the scholar must determine the part of speech, by the construction alone; remembering that adjectives belong to nouns or pronouns only; and adverbs, to verbs, participles, adjectives, or other adverbs, only. The following examples from Scripture, will partially illustrate this point, which will be noticed again under the head of syntax: "Is your father well?"—Gen., xliii, 27. "Thou hast well said."—John, iv, 17. "He separateth very friends."—Prov., xvii, 9. "Esaias is very bold."—Rom., x, 20. "For a pretence, ye make long prayer."—Matt., xxiii, 14. "They that tarry long at the wine."—Prov., xxiii, 30. "It had not much earth."—Mark, iv, 5. "For she loved much."—Luke, vii, 47.
OBS. 10.—Prepositions, in regard to their construction, differ from adjectives, almost exactly as active-transitive participles differ syntactically from adjectives: that is, in stead of being mere adjuncts to the words which follow them, they govern those words, and refer back to some other term; which, in the usual order of speech, stands before them. Thus, if I say, "A spreading oak," spreading is an adjective relating to oak; if, "A boy spreading hay," spreading is a participle, governing hay, and relating to boy, because the boy is the agent of the action. So, when Dr. Webster says, "The off horse in a team," off is an adjective, relating to the noun horse; but, in the phrase, "A man off his guard," off is a preposition, showing the relation between man and guard, and governing the latter. The following are other examples: "From the above speculations."—Harris's Hermes, p. 194. "An after period of life."—MARSHALL: in Web. Dict. "With some other of the after Judaical rites."—Right of Tythes, p. 86. "Whom this beneath world doth embrace and hug."—Shak. "Especially is over exertion made."—Journal of Lit. Conv., p. 119. "To both the under worlds."—Hudibras. "Please to pay to A. B. the amount of the within bill." Whether properly used or not, the words above, after, beneath, over, under, and within, are here unquestionably made adjectives; yet every scholar knows, that they are generally prepositions, though sometimes adverbs.
Classes.
Adjectives may be divided into six classes; namely, common, proper, numeral, pronominal, participial, and compound.
I. A common adjective is any ordinary epithet, or adjective denoting quality or situation; as, Good, bad, peaceful, warlike—eastern, western, outer, inner.
II. A proper adjective is an adjective formed from a proper name; as, American, English, Platonic, Genoese.
III. A numeral adjective is an adjective that expresses a definite number; as, One, two, three, four, five, six, &c.
IV. A pronominal adjective is a definitive word which may either accompany its noun, or represent it understood; as, "All join to guard what each desires to gain."—Pope. That is, "All men join to guard what each man desires to gain."
V. A participial adjective is one that has the form of a participle, but differs from it by rejecting the idea of time; as, "An amusing story,"—"A lying divination."
VI. A compound adjective is one that consists of two or more words joined together, either by the hyphen or solidly: as, Nut-brown, laughter-loving, four-footed; threefold, lordlike, lovesick.
Observations.
OBS. 1.—This distribution of the adjectives is no less easy to be applied, than necessary to a proper explanation in parsing. How many adjectives there are in the language, it is difficult to say; none of our dictionaries profess to exhibit all that are embraced in some of the foregoing classes. Of the Common Adjectives, there are probably not fewer than six thousand, exclusive of the common nouns which we refer to this class when they are used adjectively. Walker's Rhyming Dictionary contains five thousand or more, the greater part of which may be readily distinguished by their peculiar endings. Of those which end in ous, as generous, there are about 850. Of those in y or ly, as shaggy, homely, there are about 550. Of those in ive, as deceptive, there are about 400. Of those in al, as autumnal, there are about 550. Of those in ical, as mechanical, there are about 350. Of those in able, as valuable, there are about 600. Of those in ible, as credible, there are about 200. Of those in ent, as different, there are about 300. Of those in ant, as abundant, there are about 170. Of those in less, as ceaseless, there are about 220. Of those in ful, as useful, there are about 130. Of those in ory, as explanatory, there are about 200. Of those in ish, as childish, there are about 100. Of those in ine, as masculine, there are about 70. Of those in en, as wooden, there are about 50. Of those in some, as quarrelsome, there are about 30. These sixteen numbers added together, make 4770.
OBS. 2.—The Proper Adjectives are, in many instances, capable of being converted into declinable nouns: as, European, a European, the Europeans; Greek, a Greek, the Greeks; Asiatic, an Asiatic, the Asiatics. But with the words English, French, Dutch, Scotch, Welsh, Irish, and in general all such as would acquire an additional syllable in their declension, the case is otherwise. The gentile noun has frequently fewer syllables than the adjective, but seldom more, unless derived from some different root. Examples: Arabic, an Arab, the Arabs; Gallic, a Gaul, the Gauls; Danish, a Dane, the Danes; Moorish, a Moor, the Moors; Polish, a Pole, or Polander, the Poles; Swedish, a Swede, the Swedes; Turkish, a Turk, the Turks. When we say, the English, the French, the Dutch, the Scotch, the Welsh, the Irish,—meaning, the English people, the French people, &c., many grammarians conceive that English, French, &c., are indeclinable nouns. But in my opinion, it is better to reckon them adjectives, relating to the noun men or people understood. For if these words are nouns, so are a thousand others, after which there is the same ellipsis; as when we say, the good, the great, the wise, the learned.[168] The principle would involve the inconvenience of multiplying our nouns of the singular form and a plural meaning, indefinitely. If they are nouns, they are, in this sense, plural only; and, in an other, they are singular only. For we can no more say, an English, an Irish, or a French, for an Englishman, an Irishman, or a Frenchman; than we can say, an old, a selfish, or a rich, for an old man, a selfish man, or a rich man. Yet, in distinguishing the languages, we call them English, French, Dutch, Scotch, Welsh, Irish; using the words, certainly, in no plural sense; and preferring always the line of adjectives, where the gentile noun is different: as, Arabic, and not Arab; Danish, and not Dane; Swedish, and not Swede. In this sense, as well as in the former, Webster, Chalmers, and other modern lexicographers, call the words nouns; and the reader will perceive, that the objections offered before do not apply here. But Johnson, in his two quarto volumes, gives only two words of this sort, English and Latin; and both of these he calls adjectives: "ENGLISH, adj. Belonging to England; hence English[169] is the language of England." The word Latin, however, he makes a noun, when it means a schoolboy's exercise; for which usage he quotes, the following inaccurate example from Ascham: "He shall not use the common order in schools for making of Latins."
OBS. 3.—Dr. Webster gives us explanations like these: "CHINESE, n. sing. and plu. A native of China; also the language of China."—"JAPANESE, n. A native of Japan; or the language of the inhabitants."—"GENOESE, n. pl. the people of Genoa in Italy. Addison."—"DANISH, n. The language of the Danes."—"IRISH, n. 1. A native of Ireland. 2. The language of the Irish; the Hiberno-Celtic." According to him, then, it is proper to say, a Chinese, a Japanese, or an Irish; but not, a Genoese, because he will have this word to be plural only! Again, if with him we call a native of Ireland an Irish, will not more than one be Irishes?[170] If a native of Japan be a Japanese, will not more than one be Japaneses? In short, is it not plain, that the words, Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese, Maltese, Genoese, Milanese, and all others of like formation, should follow one and the same rule? And if so, what is that rule? Is it not this;—that, like English, French, &c., they are always adjectives; except, perhaps, when they denote languages? There may possibly be some real authority from usage, for calling a native of China a Chinese,—of Japan a Japanese,—&c.; as there is also for the regular plurals, Chineses, Japaneses, &c.; but is it, in either case, good and sufficient authority? The like forms, it is acknowledged, are, on some occasions, mere adjectives; and, in modern usage, we do not find these words inflected, as they were formerly. Examples: "The Chinese are by no means a cleanly people, either in person or dress."—Balbi's Geog., p. 415. "The Japanese excel in working in copper, iron, and steel."—Ib., p. 419. "The Portuguese are of the same origin with the Spaniards."—Ib., p. 272. "By whom the undaunted Tyrolese are led."—Wordsworth's Poems, p. 122. Again: "Amongst the Portugueses, 'tis so much a Fashion, and Emulation, amongst their Children, to learn to Read, and Write, that they cannot hinder them from it."—Locke, on Education, p. 271. "The Malteses do so, who harden the Bodies of their Children, and reconcile them to the Heat, by making them go stark Naked."—Idem, Edition of 1669, p. 5. "CHINESE, n. s. Used elliptically for the language and people of China: plural, Chineses. Sir T. Herbert."—Abridgement of Todd's Johnson. This is certainly absurd. For if Chinese is used elliptically for the people of China, it is an adjective, and does not form the plural, Chineses: which is precisely what I urge concerning the whole class. These plural forms ought not to be imitated. Horne Tooke quotes some friend of his, as saying, "No, I will never descend with him beneath even a Japanese: and I remember what Voltaire remarks of that country."—Diversions of Purley, i, 187. In this case, he ought, unquestionably, to have said—"beneath even a native of Japan;" because, whether Japanese be a noun or not, it is absurd to call a Japanese, "that country." Butler, in his Hudibras, somewhere uses the word Chineses; and it was, perhaps, in his day, common; but still, I say, it is contrary to analogy, and therefore wrong. Milton, too, has it:
"But in his way lights on the barren plains
Of Sericana, where Chineses[171] drive
With sails and wind their cany waggons light."
—Paradise Lost, B. iii, l. 437.
OBS. 4.—The Numeral Adjectives are of three kinds, namely, cardinal, ordinal, and multiplicative: each kind running on in a series indefinitely. Thus:—
1. Cardinal; One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, &c.
2. Ordinal; First, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-second, &c.
3. Multiplicative; Single or alone, double or twofold, triple or threefold, quadruple or fourfold, quintuple or fivefold, sextuple or sixfold, septuple or sevenfold, octuple or eightfold, &c. But high terms of this series are seldom used. All that occur above decuple or tenfold, are written with a hyphen, and are usually of round numbers only; as, thirty-fold, sixty-fold, hundred-fold.
OBS. 5.—A cardinal numeral denotes the whole number, but the corresponding ordinal denotes only the last one of that number, or, at the beginning of a series, the first of several or many. Thus: "One denotes simply the number one, without any regard to more; but first has respect to more, and so denotes only the first one of a greater number; and two means the number two completely; but second, the last one of two: and so of all the rest."—Burn's Gram., p. 54. A cardinal number answers to the question, "How many?" An ordinal number answers to the question, "Which one?" or, "What one?" All the ordinal numbers, except first, second, third, and the compounds of these, as twenty-first, twenty-second, twenty-third, are formed directly from the cardinal numbers by means of the termination th. And as the primitives, in this case, are many of them either compound words, or phrases consisting of several words, it is to be observed, that the addition is made to the last term only. That is, of every compound ordinal number, the last term only is ordinal in form. Thus we say, forty-ninth, and not fortieth-ninth; nor could the meaning of the phrase, four hundred and fiftieth, be expressed by saying, fourth hundredth and fiftieth; for this, if it means any thing, speaks of three different numbers.
OBS. 6.—Some of the numerals are often used as nouns; and, as such, are regularly declined: as, Ones, twoes, threes, fours, fives, &c. So, Fifths, sixths, sevenths, eighths, ninths, tenths, &c. "The seventy's translation."—Wilson's Hebrew Gram., p. 32. "I will not do it for forty's sake."—Gen., xviii, 29. "I will not destroy it for twenty's sake."—Ib., ver. 31. "For ten's sake."—Ib., ver. 32. "They sat down in ranks, by hundreds, and by fifties."—Mark, vi, 40. "There are millions of truths that a man is not concerned to know."—Locke. With the compound numerals, such a construction is less common; yet the denominator of a fraction may be a number of this sort: as, seven twenty-fifths. And here it may be observed, that, in stead of the ancient phraseology, as in 1 Chron., xxiv, 17th, "The one and twentieth to Jachin, the two and twentieth to Gamul, the three and twentieth to Delaiah, the four and twentieth to Maaziah," we now generally say, the twenty-first, the twenty-second, &c.; using the hyphen in all compounds till we arrive at one hundred, or one hundredth, and then first introducing the word and; as, one hundred and one, or one hundred and first, &c.
OBS. 7.—The Pronominal Adjectives are comparatively very few; but frequency of use gives them great importance in grammar. The following words are perhaps all that properly belong to this class, and several of these are much oftener something else: All, any, both, certain, divers, each, either, else, enough, every, few, fewer, fewest, former, first, latter, last, little, less, least, many, more, most, much, neither, no or none, one, other, own, only, same, several, some, such, sundry, that, this, these, those, what, whatever, whatsoever, which, whichever, whichsoever.[172] Of these forty-six words, seven are always singular, if the word one is not an exception; namely, each, either, every, neither, one, that, this: and nine or ten others are always plural, if the word many is not an exception; namely, both, divers, few, fewer, fewest, many, several, sundry, these, those. All the rest, like our common adjectives, are applicable to nouns of either number. Else, every, only, no, and none, are definitive words, which I have thought proper to call pronominal adjectives, though only the last can now with propriety be made to represent its noun understood. "Nor has Vossius, or any else that I know of, observed it."—Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 279. Say, "or any one else." Dr. Webster explains this word else thus: "ELSE, a. or pron. [Sax. elles] Other; one or something beside; as, Who else is coming?"—Octavo Dict. "Each and every of them," is an old phrase in which every is used pronominally, or with ellipsis of the word to which it refers; but, in common discourse, we now say, every one, every man, &c., never using the word every alone to suggest its noun. Only is perhaps most commonly an adverb; but it is still in frequent use as an adjective; and in old books we sometimes find an ellipsis of the noun to which it belongs; as, "Neither are they the only [verbs] in which it is read."—Johnson's Grammatical Commentaries, p. 373. "But I think he is the only [one] of these Authors."—Ib., p. 193. No and none seem to be only different forms of the same adjective; the former being used before a noun expressed, and the latter when the noun is understood, or not placed after the adjective; as, "For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself."—Romans, xiv, 7. None was anciently used for no before all words beginning with a vowel sound; as, "They are sottish children; and they have none understanding."—Jeremiah, iv, 22. This practice is now obsolete. None is still used, when its noun precedes it; as,
"Fools! who from hence into the notion fall,
That vice or virtue there is none at all."—Pope.
OBS. 8.—Of the words given in the foregoing list as pronominal adjectives, about one third are sometimes used adverbially. They are the following: All, when it means totally; any, for in any degree; else, meaning otherwise; enough, signifying sufficiently; first, for in the first place; last, for in the last place; little, for in a small degree; less, for in a smaller degree; least, for in the smallest degree; much, for in a great degree; more, for in a greater degree; most, for in the greatest degree; no, or none, for in no degree; only, for singly, merely, barely; what, for in what degree, or in how great a degree.[173] To these may perhaps be added the word other, when used as an alternative to somehow; as, "Somehow or other he will be favoured."—Butler's Analogy, p. 89. Here other seems to be put for otherwise; and yet the latter word would not be agreeable in such a sentence. "Somewhere or other," is a kindred phrase equally common, and equally good; or, rather, equally irregular and puzzling. Would it not be better, always to avoid both, by saying, in their stead, "In some way or other,"—"In someplace or other?" In the following examples, however, other seems to be used for otherwise, without such a connection: "How is THAT used, other than as a Conjunction?"—Ainsworth's Gram., p. 88.
"Will it not be receiv'd that they have done 't?
—Who dares receive it other?"—SHAK.: Joh. Dict., w. Other.
OBS. 9.—All and enough, little and much, more and less, sometimes suggest the idea of quantity so abstractly, that we can hardly consider them as adjuncts to any other words; for which reason, they are, in this absolute sense, put down in our dictionaries as nouns. If nouns, however, they are never inflected by cases or numbers; nor do they in general admit the usual adjuncts or definitives of nouns.[174] Thus, we can neither say, the all, for the whole, nor an enough, for a sufficiency. And though a little, the more, and the less, are common phrases, the article does not here prove the following word to be a noun; because the expression may either be elliptical, or have the construction of an adverb: as, "Though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved."—2 Cor., xii, 15. Dr. Johnson seems to suppose that the partitive use of these words makes them nouns; as, "They have much of the poetry of Mecænas, but little of his liberality."—DRYDEN: in Joh. Dict. Upon this principle, however, adjectives innumerable would be made nouns; for we can just as well say, "Some of the poetry,"—"Any of the poetry,"—"The best of Poetry," &c. In all such expressions, the name of the thing divided, is understood in the partitive word; for a part of any thing must needs be of the same species as the whole. Nor was this great grammarian sufficiently attentive to adjuncts, in determining the parts of speech. Nearly all, quite enough, so little, too much, vastly more, rather less, and an abundance of similar phrases, are familiar to every body; in none of which, can any of these words of quantity, however abstract, be very properly reckoned nouns; because the preceding word is an adverb, and adverbs do not relate to any words that are literally nouns. All these may also be used partitively; as, "Nearly all of us."
OBS. 10.—The following are some of Dr. Johnson's "nouns;" which, in connexion with the foregoing remarks, I would submit to the judgement of the reader: "'Then shall we be news-crammed.'—'All the better; we shall be the more remarkable.'"—SHAK.: in Joh. Dict. "All the fitter, Lentulus; our coming is not for salutation; we have business."—BEN JONSON: ib. "'Tis enough for me to have endeavoured the union of my country."—TEMPLE: ib. "Ye take too much upon you."—NUMBERS: ib. "The fate of love is such, that still it sees too little or too much."—DRYDEN: ib. "He thought not much to clothe his enemies."—MILTON: ib. "There remained not so much as one of them."—Ib., Exod., xiv, 28. "We will cut wood out of Lebanon, as much as thou shalt need."—Ib., 2 Chronicles. "The matter of the universe was created before the flood; if any more was created, then there must be as much annihilated to make room for it."—BURNET: ib. "The Lord do so, and much more, to Jonathan."—1 SAMUEL: ib. "They that would have more and more, can never have enough; no, not if a miracle should interpose to gratify their avarice."—L'ESTRANGE: ib. "They gathered some more, some less."—EXODUS: ib. "Thy servant knew nothing of this, less or more."—1 SAMUEL: ib. The first two examples above, Johnson explains thus: "That is, 'Every thing is the better.'—Every thing is the fitter."—Quarto Dict. The propriety of this solution may well be doubted; because the similar phrases, "So much the better,"—"None the fitter," would certainly be perverted, if resolved in the same way: much and none are here, very clearly, adverbs.
OBS. 11.—Whatever disposition may be made of the terms cited above, there are instances in which some of the same words can hardly be any thing else than nouns. Thus all, when it signifies the whole, or every thing, may be reckoned a noun; as, "Our all is at stake, and irretrievably lost, if we fail of success."—Addison. "A torch, snuff and all, goes out in a moment, when dipped in the vapour."—Id. "The first blast of wind laid it flat on the ground; nest, eagles, and all."—L'Estrange.
"Finding, the wretched all they here can have,
But present food, and but a future grave."—Prior.
"And will she yet debase her eyes on me;
On me, whose all not equals Edward's moiety?"—Shak.
"Thou shalt be all in all, and I in thee,
Forever; and in me all whom thou lov'st."—Milton.
OBS. 12.—There are yet some other words, which, by their construction alone, are to be distinguished from the pronominal adjectives. Both, when it stands as a correspondent to and, is reckoned a conjunction; as, "For both he that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one."—Heb., ii, 11. But, in sentences like the following, it seems to be an adjective, referring to the nouns which precede: "Language and manners are both established by the usage of people of fashion."—Amer. Chesterfield, p. 83. So either, corresponding to or, and neither, referring to nor, are conjunctions, and not adjectives. Which and what, with their compounds, whichever or whichsoever, whatever or whatsoever, though sometimes put before nouns as adjectives, are, for the most part, relative or interrogative pronouns. When the noun is used after them, they are adjectives; when it is omitted, they are pronouns: as, "There is a witness of God, which witness gives true judgement."—I. Penington. Here the word witness might be omitted, and which would become a relative pronoun. Dr. Lowth says, "Thy, my, her, our, your, their, are pronominal adjectives."—Gram., p. 23. This I deny; and the reader may see my reasons, in the observations upon the declension of pronouns.
OBS. 13.—The words one and other, besides their primitive uses as adjectives, in which they still remain without inflection, are frequently employed as nouns, or as substitutes for nouns; and, in this substantive or pronominal character, they commonly have the regular declension of nouns, and are reckoned such by some grammarians; though others call them indefinite pronouns, and some, (among whom are Lowth and Comly,) leave them with the pronominal adjectives, even when they are declined in both numbers. Each of them may be preceded by either of the articles; and so general is the signification of the former, that almost any adjective may likewise come before it: as, Any one, some one, such a one, many a one, a new one, an old one, an other one, the same one, the young ones, the little ones, the mighty ones, the wicked one, the Holy One, the Everlasting One. So, like the French on, or l'on, the word one, without any adjective, is now very frequently used as a general or indefinite term for any man, or any person. In this sense, it is sometimes, unquestionably, to be preferred to a personal pronoun applied indefinitely: as, "Pure religion, and undefiled before God and the Father, is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself [better, one's self] unspotted from the world."—James, i, 27. But, as its generality of meaning seems to afford a sort of covering for egotism, some writers are tempted to make too frequent a use of it. Churchill ridicules this practice, by framing, or anonymously citing, the following sentence: "If one did but dare to abide by one's own judgement, one's language would be much more refined; but one fancies one's self obliged to follow, whereever the many choose to lead one."—See Churchill's Gram., p. 229. Here every scholar will concur with the critic in thinking, it would be better to say: "If we did but dare to abide by our own judgement, our language would be much more refined; but we fancy ourselves obliged to follow wherever the many choose to lead us."—See ib.
OBS. 14.—Of the pronominal adjectives the following distribution has been made: "Each, every, and either, are called distributives; because, though they imply all the persons or things that make up a number, they consider them, not as one whole, but as taken separately. This, that, former, latter, both, neither, are termed demonstratives; because they point out precisely the subjects to which they relate. This has these for its plural; that has those. This and that are frequently put in opposition to each other; this, to express what is nearer in place or time; that, what is more remote. All, any, one, other, some, such, are termed indefinite. Another is merely other in the singular, with the indefinite article not kept separate from it.[175] Other, when not joined with a noun, is occasionally used both in the possessive case, and in the plural number: as,
'Teach me to feel an other's wo, to hide the fault I see;
That mercy I to others show, that mercy show to me.'—Pope.
Each other and one another, when used in conjunction, may be termed reciprocals; as they are employed to express a reciprocal action; the former, between two persons or things; the latter, between[176] more than two. The possessive cases of the personal pronouns have been also ranked under the head of pronominal adjectives, and styled possessives; but for this I see no good reason."—Churchill's Gram., p. 76.
OBS. 15.—The reciprocal terms each other and one an other divide, according to some mutual act or interchangeable relation, the persons or things spoken of, and are commonly of the singular number only. Each other, if rightly used, supposes two, and only two, to be acting and acted upon reciprocally; one an other, if not misapplied, supposes more than two, under like circumstances, and has an indefinite reference to all taken distributively: as, "Brutus and Aruns killed each other." That is, Each combatant killed the other. "The disciples were commanded to love one an other, and to be willing to wash one an other's feet." That is, All the disciples were commanded to love mutually; for both terms, one and other, or one disciple and an other disciple, must be here understood as taken indefinitely. The reader will observe, that the two terms thus brought together, if taken substantively or pronominally in parsing, must be represented as being of different cases; or, if we take them adjectively the noun, which is twice to be supplied, will necessarily be so.
OBS. 16.—Misapplications of the foregoing reciprocal terms are very frequent in books, though it is strange that phrases so very common should not be rightly understood. Dr. Webster, among his explanations of the word other, has the following: "Correlative to each, and applicable to any number of individuals."—Octavo Dict. "Other is used as a substitute for a noun, and in this use has the plural number and the sign of the possessive case."—Ib. Now it is plain, that the word other, as a "correlative to each," may be so far "a substitute for a noun" as to take the form of the possessive case singular, and perhaps also the plural; as, "Lock'd in each other's arms they lay." But, that the objective other, in any such relation, can convey a plural idea, or be so loosely applicable—"to any number of individuals," I must here deny. If it were so, there would be occasion, by the foregoing rule, to make it plural in form; as, "The ambitious strive to excel each others." But this is not English. Nor can it be correct to say of more than two, "They all strive to excel each other." Because the explanation must be, "Each strives to excel other;" and such a construction of the word other is not agreeable to modern usage. Each other is therefore not equivalent to one an other, but nearer perhaps to the one the other: as, "The two generals are independent the one of the other."—Voltaire's Charles XII, p. 67. "And these are contrary the one to the other."—Gal., v, 17. "The necessary connexion of the one with the other."—Blair's Rhet., p. 304. The latter phraseology, being definite and formal, is now seldom used, except the terms be separated by a verb or a preposition. It is a literal version of the French l'un l'autre, and in some instances to be preferred to each other; as,
"So fellest foes, whose plots have broke their sleep,
To take the one the other, by some chance."—Shak.
OBS. 17.—The Greek term for the reciprocals each other and one an other, is a certain plural derivative from [Greek: allos], other; and is used in three cases, the genitive, [Greek: allælon], the dative, [Greek: allælois], the accusative, [Greek: allælous]: these being all the cases which the nature of the expression admits; and for all these we commonly use the objective;—that is, we put each or one before the objective other. Now these English terms, taken in a reciprocal sense, seldom, if ever, have any plural form; because the article in one an other admits of none; and each other, when applied to two persons or things, (as it almost always is,) does not require any. I have indeed seen, in some narrative, such an example as this: "The two men were ready to cut each others' throats." But the meaning could not be, that each was ready to cut "others' throats;" and since, between the two, there was but one throat for each to cut, it would doubtless be more correct to say, "each other's throat." So Burns, in touching a gentler passion, has an inaccurate elliptical expression:
"'Tis when a youthful, loving, modest pair,
In others' arms, breathe out the tender tale."
—Cotter's Sat. Night.
He meant, "In each other's arms;" the apostrophe being misplaced, and the metre improperly allowed to exclude a word which the sense requires. Now, as to the plural of each other, although we do not use the objective, and say of many, "They love each others," there appear to be some instances in which the possessive plural, each others', would not be improper; as, "Sixteen ministers, who meet weekly at each other's houses."—Johnson's Life of Swift. Here the singular is wrong, because the governing noun implies a plurality of owners. "The citizens of different states should know each others characters."—Webster's Essays, p. 35. This also is wrong, because no possessive sign is used. Either write, "each others' characters," or say, "one an other's character."
OBS. 18.—One and other are, in many instances, terms relative and partitive, rather than reciprocal; and, in this use, there seems to be an occasional demand for the plural form. In French, two parties are contrasted by les uns—les autres; a mode of expression seldom, if ever imitated in English. Thus: "Il les séparera les uns d'avec les autres." That is, "He shall separate them some from others;"—or, literally, "the ones from the others." Our version is: "He shall separate them one from an other."—Matt., xxv, 32. Beza has it: "Separabit eos alteros ab alteris." The Vulgate: "Separabit eos ab invicem." The Greek: "[Greek: Aphoriei autous ap allælon]." To separate many "one from an other," seems, literally, to leave none of them together; and this is not, "as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats." To express such an idea with perfect propriety, in our language, therefore, we must resort to some other phraseology. In Campbell's version, we read: "And out of them he will separate the good from the bad, as a shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats." Better, perhaps, thus: "And he shall separate them, the righteous from the wicked, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats."
OBS. 19.—Dr. Bullions says, "One and other refer to the singular only."—Eng. Gram., p. 98. Of ones and others he takes no notice; nor is he sufficiently attentive to usage in respect to the roots. If there is any absurdity in giving a plural meaning to the singulars one and other, the following sentences need amendment: "The one preach Christ of contention; but the other, of love."—Philippians, i, 16. Here "the one" is put for "the one class," and "the other" for "the other class;" the ellipsis in the first instance not being a very proper one. "The confusion arises, when the one will put their sickle into the other's harvest."—LESLEY: in Joh. Dict. This may be corrected by saying, "the one party," or, "the one nation," in stead of "the one." "It is clear from Scripture, that Antichrist shall be permitted to work false miracles, and that they shall so counterfeit the true, that it will be hard to discern the one from the other."—Barclay's Works, iii, 93. If in any ease we may adopt the French construction above, "the ones from the others," it will be proper here. Again: "I have seen children at a table, who, whatever was there, never asked for any thing, but contentedly took what was given them: and, at an other place, I have seen others cry for every thing they saw; they must be served out of every dish, and that first too. What made this vast difference, but this: That one was accustomed to have what they called or cried for; the other to go without it?"—Locke, on Education, p. 55. Here, (with were for was,) the terms of contrast ought rather to have been, the ones—the others; the latter—the former; or, the importunate—the modest. "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 pronoun adjectives, ['pronouns adjective,' or 'pronominal 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 pronouns 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 class 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 analogies 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 assuming 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, noble-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 God-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 God, 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 classing and defining them otherwise than simply as the comparative and the superlative. The assumption 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 assertions, 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 space. 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 passage, 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 assuming, &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 repetition 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 assumed 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,"—"Præstantior 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, quæ es miserrima, quod ipsa calamitas communis est utriusque nostrùm, 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 Institutes 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, surpassed 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 illustrated. (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 latitude 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 assumption, 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 God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God 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 unsurpassed 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 unsurpassable, 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 quantities 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 Classical 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 assertion 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 Dick'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 Dick'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."—Analytical 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 sex."—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 passage, 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 Hell; myself am Hell;
And in the lowest depth, a lower deep,
Still threat'ning to devour me, opens wide,
To which the Hell 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 Hell 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 Hell, 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 god, 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.
Regular Comparison.
Adjectives are regularly compared, when the comparative degree is expressed by adding er, and the superlative, by adding est to them: as, Pos., great, Comp., greater, Superl., greatest; Pos., mild, Comp., milder, Superl., mildest.
In the variation of adjectives, final consonants are doubled, final e is omitted, and final y is changed to i, agreeably to the rules for spelling: as, hot, hotter, hottest; wide, wider, widest; happy, happier, happiest.
The regular method of comparison belongs almost exclusively to monosyllables, with dissyllables ending in w or y, and such others as receive it and still have but one syllable after the accent: as, fierce, fiercer, fiercest; narrow, narrower, narrowest; gloomy, gloomier, gloomiest; serene, serener, serenest; noble, nobler, noblest; gentle, gentler, gentlest.
Comparison by Adverbs.
The two degrees of superiority may also be expressed with precisely the same import as above, by prefixing to the adjective the adverbs more and most: as, wise, more wise, most wise; famous, more famous, most famous; amiable, more amiable, most amiable.
The degrees of inferiority are expressed, in like manner, by the adverbs less and least: as, wise, less wise, least wise; famous, less famous, least famous; amiable, less amiable, least amiable. The regular method of comparison has, properly speaking, no degrees of this kind.
Nearly all adjectives that admit of different degrees, may be compared by means of the adverbs; but, for short words, the regular method is generally preferable: as, quick, quicker, quickest; rather than, quick, more quick, most quick.
Observations.
OBS. 1.—The genius of our language is particularly averse to the lengthening of long words by additional syllables; and, in the comparison of adjectives, er and est always add a syllable to the word, except it end in le after a mute. Thus, free, freer, freest, increases syllabically; but ample, ampler, amplest, does not. Whether any particular adjective admits of comparison or not, is a matter of reasoning from the sense of the term; by which method it shall be compared, is in some degree a matter of taste; though custom has decided that long words shall not be inflected, and for the shorter, there is generally an obvious bias in favour of one form rather than the other. Dr. Johnson says, "The comparison of adjectives is very uncertain; and being much regulated by commodiousness of utterance, or agreeableness of sound, 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 title of "His Most Christian Majesty," the superlative adverb is applied to a proper adjective; but who will pretend that we ought to understand by it "the highest degree" of Christian attainment? It might seem uncourtly to suggest that this is "an abuse of the king's English," I shall therefore say no such thing. Pope compares the word Christian, in the following couplet:—
"Go, purified by flames ascend the sky,
My better and more Christian progeny."—Dunciad, B. i, l. 227.
Irregular Comparison.
The following adjectives are compared irregularly: good, better, best; bad, evil, or ill, worse, worst; little, less, least; much, more, most; many, more, most.
Observations.
OBS. 1.—In English, and also in Latin, most adjectives that denote place or situation, not only form the superlative irregularly, but are also either defective or redundant in comparison. Thus:
I. The following nine have more than one superlative: far, farther, farthest, farmost, or farthermost; near, nearer, nearest or next; fore, former, foremost or first; hind, hinder, hindmost or hindermost; in, inner, inmost or innermost; out, outer, or utter, outmost or utmost, outermost or uttermost; up, upper, upmost or uppermost; low, lower, lowest or lowermost; late, later or latter, latest or last.
II. The following five want the positive: [aft, adv.,] after, aftmost or aftermost; [forth, adv., formerly furth,[180]] further, furthest or furthermost; hither, hithermost; nether, nethermost; under, undermost.
III. The following want the comparative: front, frontmost; rear, rearmost; head, headmost; end, endmost; top, topmost; bottom, bottommost; mid or middle, midst,[181] midmost or middlemost; north, northmost; south, southmost; east, eastmost; west, westmost; northern, northernmost; southern, southernmost; eastern, easternmost; western, westernmost.
OBS. 2.—Many of these irregular words are not always used as adjectives, but oftener as nouns, adverbs, or prepositions. The sense in which they are employed, will show to what class they belong. The terms fore and hind, front and rear, right and left, in and out, high and low, top and bottom, up and down, upper and under, mid and after, all but the last pair, are in direct contrast with each other. Many of them are often joined in composition with other words; and some, when used as adjectives of place, are rarely separated from their nouns: as, _in_land, _out_house, mid-sea, after-ages. Practice is here so capricious, I find it difficult to determine whether the compounding of these terms is proper or not. It is a case about which he that inquires most, may perhaps be most in doubt. If the joining of the words prevents the possibility of mistaking the adjective for a preposition, it prevents also the separate classification of the adjective and the noun, and thus in some sense destroys the former by making the whole a noun. Dr. Webster writes thus: "FRONTROOM, n. A room or apartment in the forepart of a house. BACKROOM, n. A room behind the front room, or in the back part of the house."—Octavo Dict. So of many phrases by which people tell of turning things, or changing the position of their parts; as, _in_side out, _out_side _in; up_side _down, down_side up; wrong end foremost, but-end foremost; fore-part back, fore-end aft; hind side _before, back_side before. Here all these contrasted particles seem to be adjectives of place or situation. What grammarians in general would choose to call them, it is hard to say; probably, many would satisfy themselves with calling the whole "an adverbial phrase,"—the common way of disposing of every thing which it is difficult to analyze. These, and the following examples from Scott, are a fair specimen of the uncertainty of present usage:
"The herds without a keeper strayed,
The plough was in mid-furrow staid."—Lady of the Lake.
"The eager huntsman knew his bound,
And in mid chase called off his hound."—Ibidem.
OBS. 3.—For the chief points of the compass, we have so many adjectives, and so many modes of varying or comparing them, that it is difficult to tell their number, or to know which to choose in practice. (1.) North, south, east, and west, are familiarly used both as nouns and as adjectives. From these it seems not improper to form superlatives, as above, by adding most; as, "From Aroar to Nebo, and the wild of southmost Abarim."—Milton. "There are no rivulets or springs in the island of Feror, the westmost of the Canaries."—White's Nat. Hist. (2.) These primitive terms may also be compared, in all three of the degrees, by the adverbs farther and farthest, or further and furthest; as, "Which is yet farther west."—Bacon. (3.) Though we never employ as separate words the comparatives norther, souther, easter, wester, we have northerly, southerly, easterly, and westerly, which seem to have been formed from such comparatives, by adding ly; and these four may be compared by the adverbs more and most, or less and least: as, "These hills give us a view of the most easterly, southerly, and westerly parts of England."—GRAUNT: in Joh. Dict. (4.) From these supposed comparatives likewise, some authors form the superlatives northermost, southermost, eastermost, and westermost; as, "From the westermost part of Oyster bay."—Dr. Webster's Hist. U. S., p. 126. "And three miles southward of the southermost part of said bay."—Trumbull's Hist. of Amer., Vol. i, p. 88. "Pockanocket was on the westermost line of Plymouth Colony."—Ib., p. 44. "As far as the northermost branch of the said bay or river."—Ib., p. 127. The propriety of these is at least questionable; and, as they are neither very necessary to the language, nor recognized by any of our lexicographers, I forbear to approve them. (5.) From the four primitives we have also a third series of positives, ending in ern; as, northern, southern, eastern, western. These, though they have no comparatives of their own, not only form superlatives by assuming the termination most, but are sometimes compared, perhaps in both degrees, by a separate use of the adverbs: as, "Southernmost, a. Furthest towards the south."—Webster's Dict. "Until it shall intersect the northernmost part of the thirty-first degree of north latitude."—Articles of Peace. "To the north-westernmost head of Connecticut river."—Ib. "Thence through the said lake to the most north-western point thereof."—Ib.
OBS. 4.—It may be remarked of the comparatives former and latter or hinder, upper and under or nether, inner and outer or utter, after and hither; as well as of the Latin superior and inferior, anterior and posterior, interior and exterior, prior and ulterior, senior and junior, major and minor; that they cannot, like other comparatives, be construed with the conjunction than. After all genuine English comparatives, this conjunction may occur, because it is the only fit word for introducing the latter term of comparison; but we never say one thing is former or latter, superior or inferior, than an other. And so of all the rest here named. Again, no real comparative or superlative can ever need an other superadded to it; but inferior and superior convey ideas that do not always preclude the additional conception of more or less: as, "With respect to high and low notes, pronunciation is still more inferior to singing."—Kames, Elements of Criticism, Vol. ii, p. 73. "The mistakes which the most superior understanding is apt to fall into."—West's Letters to a Young Lady, p. 117.
OBS. 5.—Double comparatives and double superlatives, being in general awkward and unfashionable, as well as tautological, ought to be avoided. Examples: "The Duke of Milan, and his more braver daughter, could control thee."—Shak., Tempest. Say, "his more gallant daughter." "What in me was purchased, falls upon thee in a more fairer sort."—Id., Henry IV. Say, "fairer," or, "more honest;" for "purchased" here means stolen. "Changed to a worser shape thou canst not be."—Id., Hen. VI. Say, "a worse shape"—or, "an uglier shape." "After the most straitest sect of our religion, I lived a Pharisee."—Acts, xxvi, 5. Say, "the strictest sect." "Some say he's mad; others, that lesser hate him, do call it valiant fury."—Shak. Say, "others, that hate him less." In this last example, lesser is used adverbially; in which construction it is certainly incorrect. But against lesser as an adjective, some grammarians have spoken with more severity, than comports with a proper respect for authority. Dr. Johnson says, "LESSER, adj. A barbarous corruption of less, formed by the vulgar from the habit of terminating comparatives in er; afterward adopted by poets, and then by writers of prose, till it has all the authority which a mode originally erroneous can derive from custom."—Quarto Dict. With no great fairness, Churchill quotes this passage as far as the semicolon, and there stops. The position thus taken, he further endeavours to strengthen, by saying, "Worser, though not more barbarous, offends the ear in a much greater degree, because it has not been so frequently used."—New Gram., p. 232. Example: "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night."—Gen., i, 16. Kirkham, after making an imitation of this passage, remarks upon it: "Lesser is as incorrect as badder, gooder, worser."—Gram., p. 77. The judgement of any critic who is ignorant enough to say this, is worthy only of contempt. Lesser is still frequently used by the most tasteful authors, both in verse and prose: as, "It is the glowing style of a man who is negligent of lesser graces."—Blair's Rhet., p. 189.
"Athos, Olympus, Ætna, Atlas, made
These hills seem things of lesser dignity."—Byron.
OBS. 6.—The adjective little is used in different senses; for it contrasts sometimes with great, and sometimes with much. Lesser appears to refer only to size. Hence less and lesser are not always equivalent terms. Lesser means smaller, and contrasts only with greater. Less contrasts sometimes with greater, but oftener with more, the comparative of much; for, though it may mean not so large, its most common meaning is not so much. It ought to be observed, likewise, that less is not an adjective of number,[182] though not unfrequently used as such. It does not mean fewer, and is therefore not properly employed in sentences like the following: "In all verbs, there are no less than three things implied at once."—Blair's Rhet., p. 81. "Smaller things than three," is nonsense; and so, in reality, is what the Doctor here says. Less is not the proper opposite to more, when more is the comparative of many: few, fewer, fewest, are the only words which contrast regularly with many, more, most. In the following text, these comparatives are rightly employed: "And to the more ye shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer ye shall give the less inheritance."—Numbers, xxxiii, 54. But if writers will continue to use less for fewer, so that "less cattle," for instance, may mean "fewer cattle;" we shall be under a sort of necessity to retain lesser, in order to speak intelligibly: as, "It shall be for the sending-forth of oxen, and for the treading of lesser cattle."—Isaiah, vii, 25. I have no partiality for the word lesser, neither will I make myself ridiculous by flouting at its rudeness. "This word," says Webster, "is a corruption, but [it is] too well established to be discarded. Authors always write the Lesser Asia."—Octavo Dict. "By the same reason, may a man punish the lesser breaches of that law."—Locke. "When we speak of the lesser differences among the tastes of men."—Blair's Rhet., p. 20. "In greater or lesser degrees of complexity."—Burke, on Sublime, p. 94. "The greater ought not to succumb to the lesser."—Dillwyn's Reflections, p. 128. "To such productions, lesser composers must resort for ideas."—Gardiner's Music of Nature, p. 413.
"The larger here, and there the lesser lambs,
The new-fall'n young herd bleating for their dams."—Pope.
OBS. 7.—Our grammarians deny the comparison of many adjectives, from a false notion that they are already superlatives. Thus W. Allen: "Adjectives compounded with the Latin preposition per, are already superlative: as, perfect, perennial, permanent, &c."—Elements of E. Gram., p. 52. In reply to this, I would say, that nothing is really superlative, in English, but what has the form and construction of the superlative; as, "The most permanent of all dyes." No word beginning with per, is superlative by virtue of this Latin prefix. "Separate spirits, which are beings that have perfecter knowledge and greater happiness than we, must needs have also a perfecter way of communicating their thoughts than we have."—Locke's Essay, B. ii, Ch. 24, §36, This mode of comparison is not now good, but it shows that perfect is no superlative. Thus Kirkham: "The following adjectives, and many others, are always in the superlative degree; because, by expressing a quality in the highest degree, they carry in themselves a superlative signification: chief, extreme, perfect, right, wrong, honest, just, true, correct, sincere, vast, immense, ceaseless, infinite, endless, unparalleled, universal, supreme, unlimited, omnipotent, all-wise, eternal." [183]—Gram., p. 73. So the Rev. David Blair: "The words perfect, certain, infinite, universal, chief, supreme, right, true, extreme, superior, and some others, which express a perfect and superlative sense in themselves, do not admit of comparison."—English Gram., p. 81. Now, according to Murray's definition, which Kirkham adopts, none of these words can be at all in the superlative degree. On the contrary, there are several among them, from which true superlatives are frequently and correctly formed. Where are the positives which are here supposed to be "increased to the highest degree?" Every real superlative in our language, except best and worst, most and least, first and last, with the still more irregular word next, is a derivative, formed from some other English word, by adding est or most; as, truest, hindmost. The propriety or impropriety of comparing the foregoing words, or any of the "many others" of which this author speaks, is to be determined according to their meaning, and according to the usage of good writers, and not by the dictation of a feeble pedant, or upon the supposition that if compared they would form "double superlatives."
OBS. 8.—Chief is from the French word chef, the head: chiefest is therefore no more a double superlative than headmost: "But when the headmost foes appeared."—Scott. Nor are chief and chiefest equivalent terms: "Doeg an Edomite, the chiefest of the herdsmen."—1 Samuel, xxi, 7. "The chief of the herdsmen," would convey a different meaning; it would be either the leader of the herdsmen, or the principal part of them. Chiefest, however, has often been used where chief would have been better; as, "He sometimes denied admission to the chiefest officers of the army."—Clarendon, let us look further at Kirkham's list of absolute "superlatives."
OBS. 9.—Extreme is from the Latin superlative extremus, and of course its literal signification is not really susceptible of increase. Yet extremest has been used, and is still used, by some of the very best writers; as, "They thought it the extremest of evils."—Bacon. "That on the sea's extremest border stood."—Addison. "How, to extremest thrill of agony."—Pollok, B. viii, l. 270. "I go th' extremest remedy to prove."—Dryden. "In extremest poverty."—Swift. "The hairy fool stood on th' extremest verge of the swift brook, augmenting it with tears."—Shak. "While the extremest parts of the earth were meditating submission."—Atterbury. "His writings are poetical to the extremest boundaries of poetry."—Adams's Rhetoric, i, 87. In prose, this superlative is not now very common; but the poets still occasionally use it, for the sake of their measure; and it ought to be noticed that the simple adjective is not partitive. If we say, for the first example, "the extreme of evils;" we make the word a noun, and do not convey exactly the same idea that is there expressed.
OBS. 10.—Perfect, if taken in its strictest sense, must not be compared; but this word, like many others which mean most in the positive, is often used with a certain latitude of meaning, which renders its comparison by the adverbs not altogether inadmissible; nor is it destitute of authority, as I have already shown. (See Obs. 8th, p. 280.) "From the first rough sketches, to the more perfect draughts."—Bolingbroke, on Hist., p. 152. "The most perfect."—Adams's Lect. on Rhet., i, 99 and 136; ii, 17 and 57: Blair's Lect., pp. 20 and 399. "The most beautiful and perfect example of analysis."—Lowth's Gram., Pref., p. 10. "The plainest, most perfect, and most useful manual."—Bullions's E. Gram., Rev., p. 7. "Our sight is the most perfect, and the most delightful, of all our senses."—Addison, Spect., No. 411; Blair's Lect., pp. 115 and 194; Murray's Gram., i, 322. Here Murray anonymously copied Blair. "And to render natives more perfect in the knowledge of it."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 171; Murray's Gram., p. 366. Here Murray copied Campbell, the most accurate of all his masters. Whom did he copy when he said, "The phrases, more perfect, and most perfect, are improper?"—Octavo Gram., p. 168. But if these are wrong, so is the following sentence: "No poet has ever attained a greater perfection than Horace."—Blair's Lect., p. 398. And also this: "Why are we brought into the world less perfect in respect to our nature?"—West's Letters to a Young Lady, p. 220.
OBS. 11.—Right and wrong are not often compared by good writers; though we sometimes see such phrases as more right and more wrong, and such words as rightest and wrongest: "'Tis always in the wrongest sense."—Butler. "A method of attaining the rightest and greatest happiness."—PRICE: Priestley's Gram., p. 78. "It is no more right to steal apples, than it is to steal money."—Webster's New Spelling-Book, p. 118. There are equivalent expressions which seem preferable; as, more proper, more erroneous, most proper, most erroneous.
OBS. 12.—Honest, just, true, correct, sincere, and vast, may all be compared at pleasure. Pope's Essay on Criticism is more correct than any thing this modest pretender can write; and in it, he may find the comparative juster, the superlatives justest, truest, sincerest, and the phrases, "So vast a throng,"—"So vast is art:" all of which are contrary to his teaching. "Unjuster dealing is used in buying than in selling."—Butler's Poems, p. 163. "Iniquissimam pacem justissimo bello antefero."—Cicero. "I prefer the unjustest peace before the justest war."—Walker's English Particles, p. 68. The poet Cowley used the word honestest; which is not now very common. So Swift: "What honester folks never durst for their ears."—The Yahoo's Overthrow. So Jucius: "The honestest and ablest men."—Letter XVIII. "The sentence would be more correct in the following form."—Murray's Gram., i, p. 223. "Elegance is chiefly gained by studying the correctest writers."—Holmes's Rhetoric, p. 27. Honest and correct, for the sake of euphony, require the adverbs; as, more honest, "most correct."—Lowth's Gram., Pref., p. iv. Vast, vaster, vastest, are words as smooth, as fast, faster, fastest; and more vast is certainly as good English as more just: "Shall mortal man be more just than God?"—Job, iv, 17. "Wilt thou condemn him that is most just?"—Ib., xxxiv, 17. "More wise, more learn'd, more just, more-everything."—Pope. Universal is often compared by the adverbs, but certainly with no reënforcement of meaning: as, "One of the most universal precepts, is, that the orator himself should feel the passion."—Adams's Rhet., i, 379. "Though not so universal."—Ib., ii, 311. "This experience is general, though not so universal, as the absence of memory in childhood."—Ib., ii, 362. "We can suppose no motive which would more universally operate."—Dr. Blair's Rhet., p. 55. "Music is known to have been more universally studied."—Ib., p. 123. "We shall not wonder, that his grammar has been so universally applauded."—Walker's Recommendation in Murray's Gram., ii, 306. "The pronoun it is the most universal of all the pronouns."—Cutler's Gram., p. 66. Thus much for one half of this critic's twenty-two "superlatives." The rest are simply adjectives that are not susceptible of comparison: they are not "superlatives" at all. A man might just as well teach, that good is a superlative, and not susceptible of comparison, because "there is none good but one."
OBS. 13.—Pronominal adjectives, when their nouns are expressed, simply relate to them, and have no modifications: except this and that, which form the plurals these and those; and much, many, and a few others, which are compared. Examples: "Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?"—Matt., xiii, 54. "But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?"—1 Cor., xv, 35. "The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."—Ib., 45. So, when one pronominal adjective "precedes an other, the former must be taken simply as an adjective;" as,
"Those suns are set. O rise some other such!" —Cowper's Task, B. ii, l. 252.
OBS. 14.—Pronominal adjectives, when their nouns are not expressed, may be parsed as representing them in person, number, gender, and case; but those who prefer it, may supply the ellipsis, and parse the adjective, simply as an adjective. Example: "He threatens many, who injures one."—Kames. Here it may be said, "Many is a pronominal adjective, meaning many persons; of the third person, plural number, masculine gender, and objective case." Or those who will take the word simply as an adjective, may say, "Many is a pronominal adjective, of the positive degree, compared many, more, most, and relating to persons understood." And so of "one," which represents, or relates to, person understood. Either say, "One is a pronominal adjective, not compared," and give the three definitions accordingly; or else say, "One is a pronominal adjective, relating to person understood; of the third person, singular number, masculine gender, and objective case," and give the six definitions accordingly.
OBS. 15.—Elder for older, and eldest for oldest, are still frequently used; though the ancient positive, eld for old, is now obsolete. Hence some have represented old as having a two-fold comparison; and have placed it, not very properly, among the irregular adjectives. The comparatives elder and better, are often used as nouns; so are the Latin comparatives superior and inferior, interior and exterior, senior and junior, major and minor: as, The elder's advice,—One of the elders,—His betters,—Our superiors,—The interior of the country,—A handsome exterior,—Your seniors,—My juniors,—A major in the army,—He is yet a minor. The word other, which has something of the nature of a comparative, likewise takes the form of a noun, as before suggested; and, in that form, the reader, if he will, may call it a noun: as, "What do ye more than others?"—Bible. "God in thus much is bounded, that the evil hath he left unto an other; and that Dark Other hath usurped the evil which Omnipotence laid down."—Tupper's Book of Thoughts, p. 45. Some call it a pronoun. But it seems to be pronominal, merely by ellipsis of the noun after it; although, unlike a mere adjective, it assumes the ending of the noun, to mark that ellipsis. Perhaps therefore, the best explanation of it would be this: "'Others is a pronominal adjective, having the form of a noun, and put for other men; in the third person, plural number, masculine gender, and nominative case." The gender of this word varies, according to that of the contrasted term; and the case, according to the relation it bears to other words. In the following example, it is neuter and objective: "The fibres of this muscle act as those of others."—Cheyne. Here, "as those of others," means, "as the fibres of other muscles."
OBS. 16.—"Comparatives and superlatives seem sometimes to part with their relative nature, and only to retain their intensive, especially those which are formed by the superlative adverb most; as, 'A most learned man,'—'A most brave man:' i. e. not the bravest or the most learned man that ever was, but a man possessing bravery or learning in a very eminent degree."—See Alexander Murray's Gram., p. 110. This use of the terms of comparison is thought by some not to be very grammatical.
OBS. 17.—Contractions of the superlative termination est, as high'st for highest, bigg'st for biggest, though sometimes used by the poets, are always inelegant, and may justly be considered grammatically improper. They occur most frequently in doggerel verse, like that of Hudibras; the author of which work, wrote, in his droll fashion, not only the foregoing monosyllables, but learned'st for most learned, activ'st for most active, desperat'st for most desperate, epidemical'st for most epidemical, &c.
"And th' activ'st fancies share as loose alloys,
For want of equal weight to counterpoise."—Butler's Poems.
"Who therefore finds the artificial'st fools
Have not been chang'd i th' cradle, but the schools."—Ib., p. 143.
OBS. 18.—Nouns used adjectively are not varied in number to agree with the nouns to which they relate, but what is singular or plural when used substantively, is without number when taken as an adjective: as, "One of the nine sister goddesses."—Webster's Dict., w. Muse. "He has money in a savings bank." The latter mode of expression is uncommon, and the term savings-bank is sometimes compounded, but the hyphen does not really affect the nature of the former word. It is doubtful, however, whether a plural noun can ever properly assume the character of an adjective; because, if it is not then really the same as the possessive case, it will always be liable to be thought a false form of that case. What Johnson wrote "fullers earth" and "fullers thistle;" Chalmers has "fullers earth" and "fuller's thistle;" Webster, "fuller's-earth" and "fuller's-thistle;" Ainsworth, "fuller's earth" and "fuller's thistle;" Walker has only "fullers-earth;" Worcester, "fuller's-earth;" Cobb, "fullers earth;" the Treasury of Knowledge, "fullers'-earth." So unsettled is this part of our grammar, that in many such cases it is difficult cult to say whether we ought to use the apostrophe, or the hyphen, or both, or neither. To insert neither, unless we make a close compound, is to use a plural noun adjectively; which form, I think, is the most objectionable of all. See "All souls day,"—"All-fools-day,"—"All-saints'-day," &c., in the dictionaries. These may well be written "All Souls' Day" &c.
Examples for Parsing.
Praxis Iv.—Etymological.
In the Fourth Praxis, it is required of the pupil—to distinguish and define the different parts of speech, and the classes and modifications of the ARTICLES, NOUNS, and ADJECTIVES.
The definitions to be given in the Fourth Praxis, are two for an article, six for a noun, three for an adjective, and one for a pronoun, a verb, a participle, an adverb, a conjunction, a preposition, or an interjection. Thus:—
Example Parsed.
"The best and most effectual method of teaching grammar, is precisely that of which the careless are least fond: teach learnedly, rebuking whatsoever is false, blundering, or unmannerly."—G. Brown.
The is the definite article. 1. An article is the word the, an, or a, which we put before nouns to limit their signification. 2. The definite article is the, which denotes some particular thing or things.
Best is a common adjective, of the superlative degree; compared irregularly, good, better, best. 1. An adjective is a word added to a noun or pronoun, and generally expresses quality. 2. A common adjective is any ordinary epithet, or adjective denoting quality or situation. 3. The superlative degree is that which is most or least of all included with it.
And, is a conjunction. 1. A conjunction is a word used to connect words or sentences in constructing, and to show the dependence of the terms so connected.
Most is an adverb. 1. An adverb is a word added to a verb, a participle, an adjective, or an other adverb; and generally expresses time, place, degree, or manner.
Effectual is a common adjective, compared by means of the adverbs; effectual, more effectual, most effectual; or, effectual, less effectual, least effectual. 1. An adjective is a word added to a noun or pronoun, and generally expresses quality. 2. A common adjective is any ordinary epithet, or adjective denoting quality or situation. 3. Those adjectives which may be varied in sense, but not in form, are compared by means of adverbs.
Method is a common noun, of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case. 1. A noun is the name of any person, place, or thing, that can be known or mentioned. 2. A common noun is the name of a sort, kind, or class, of beings or things. 3. The third person, is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The neuter gender is that which denotes things that are neither male nor female. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.
Of is a preposition. 1. A preposition is a word used to express some relation of different things or thoughts to each other, and is generally placed before a noun or a pronoun.
Teaching is a participle. 1. A participle is a word derived from a verb, participating the properties of a verb, and of an adjective or a noun; and is generally formed by adding ing, d, or ed, to the verb.
Grammar is a common noun, of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and objective case. 1. A noun is the name of any person, place or thing, that can be known or mentioned. 2. A common noun is the name of a sort, kind, or class, of beings or things. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The neuter gender is that which denotes things that are neither male nor female. 6. The objective case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the object of a verb, participle, or preposition.
Is is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies to be, to act, or to be acted upon.
Precisely is an adverb. 1. An adverb is a word added to a verb, a participle, an adjective, or an other adverb; and generally expresses time, place, degree, or manner.
That is a pronominal adjective, not compared; standing for that method, in the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative case. [See OBS. 14th,] 1. An adjective is a word added to a noun or pronoun, and generally expresses quality. 2. A pronominal adjective is a definitive word which may either accompany its noun or represent it understood. 3. The third person is that which denotes the person or thing merely spoken of. 4. The singular number is that which denotes but one. 5. The neuter gender is that which denotes things that are neither male nor female. 6. The nominative case is that form or state of a noun or pronoun, which usually denotes the subject of a finite verb.
Of is a preposition. 1. A preposition is a word used to express some relation of different things or thoughts to each other, and is generally placed before a noun or a pronoun.
Which is a pronoun. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun.
The is the definite article. 1. An article is the word the, an, or a, which we put before nouns to limit their signification. 2. The definite article is the, which denotes some particular thing or things.
Careless is a common adjective, compared by means of the adverbs; careless, more careless, most careless; or, careless, less careless, least careless. 1. An adjective is a word added to a noun or pronoun, and generally expresses quality. 2. A common adjective is any ordinary epithet, or adjective denoting quality or situation. 3. Those adjectives which may be varied in sense, but not in form, are compared by means of adverbs.
Are is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies to be, to act, or to be acted upon.
Least is an adverb. 1. An adverb is a word added to a verb, a participle, an adjective, or an other adverb; and generally expresses time, place, degree, or manner.
Fond is a common adjective, compared regularly, fond, fonder, fondest; but here made superlative by the adverb least. 1. An adjective is a word added to a noun or pronoun, and generally expresses quality. 2. A common adjective is any ordinary epithet, or adjective denoting quality or situation. 8. The superlative degree is that which is most or least of all included with it.
Teach is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies to be, to act, or to be acted upon.
Learnedly is an adverb. 1. An adverb is a word added to a verb, a participle, an adjective, or an other adverb; and generally expresses time, place, degree, or manner.
Rebuking is a participle. 1. A participle is a word derived from a verb, participating the properties of a verb, and of an adjective or a noun; and is generally formed by adding ing, d, or ed, to the verb.
Whatsoever is a pronoun. 1. A pronoun is a word used in stead of a noun.
Is is a verb. 1. A verb is a word that signifies to be, to act, or to be acted upon.
False is a common adjective, of the positive degree; compared regularly, false, falser, falsest. 1. An adjective is a word added to a noun or pronoun, and generally expresses quality. 2. A common adjective is any ordinary epithet, or adjective denoting quality or situation. 3. The positive degree is that which is expressed by the adjective in its simple form.
Blundering is a participial adjective, compared by means of the adverbs; blundering, more blundering, most blundering; or, blundering, less blundering, least blundering. 1. An adjective is a word added to a noun or pronoun, and generally expresses quality. 2. A participial adjective is one that has the form of a participle, but differs from it by rejecting the idea of time. 3. Those adjectives which may be varied in sense, but not in form, are compared by means of adverbs.
Or is a conjunction. 1. A conjunction is a word used to connect words or sentences in construction, and to show the dependence of the terms so connected.
Unmannerly is a common adjective, compared by means of the adverbs; unmannerly, more unmannerly, most unmannerly; or, unmannerly, less unmannerly, least unmannerly. 1. An adjective is a word added to a noun or pronoun, and generally expresses quality. 2. A common adjective is any ordinary epithet, or adjective denoting quality or situation. 3. Those adjectives which may be varied in sense, but not in form, are compared by means of adverbs.
Lesson I.—Parsing.
"The noblest and most beneficial invention of which human ingenuity can boast, is that of writing."—Robertson's America, Vol. II, p. 193.
"Charlemagne was the tallest, the handsomest, and the strongest man of his time; his appearance was truly majestic, and he had surprising agility in all sorts of manly exercises."—Stories of France, p. 19.
"Money, like other things, is more or less valuable, as it is less or more plentiful."—Beanie's Moral Science, p. 378.
"The right way of acting, is, in a moral sense, as much a reality, in the mind of an ordinary man, as the straight or the right road."—Dr. Murray's Hist. Lang., i, 118.
"The full period of several members possesses most dignity and modulation, and conveys also the greatest degree of force, by admitting the closest compression of thought."—Jamieson's Rhet., p. 79.
"His great master, Demosthenes, in addressing popular audiences, never had recourse to a similar expedient. He avoided redundancies, as equivocal and feeble. He aimed only to make the deepest and most efficient impression; and he employed for this purpose, the plainest, the fewest, and the most emphatic words."—Ib., p. 68.
"The high eloquence which I have last mentioned, is always the offspring of passion. A man actuated by a strong passion, becomes much greater than he is at other times. He is conscious of more strength and force; he utters greater sentiments, conceives higher designs, and executes them with a boldness and felicity, of which, on other occasions, he could not think himself capable."—Blair's Rhet., p. 236.
"His words bore sterling weight, nervous and strong,
In manly tides of sense they roll'd along."—Churchill.
"To make the humble proud, the proud submiss,
Wiser the wisest, and the brave more brave."—W. S. Landor.
Lesson Ii.—Parsing.
"I am satisfied that in this, as in all cases, it is best, safest, as well as most right and honorable, to speak freely and plainly."—Channing's Letter to Clay, p. 4.
"The gospel, when preached with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, through the wonder-working power of God, can make the proud humble, the selfish disinterested, the worldly heavenly, the sensual pure."—Christian Experience, p. 399.
"I am so much the better, as I am the liker[184] the best; and so much the holier, as I am more conformable to the holiest, or rather to Him who is holiness itself."—Bp. Beneridge.
"Whether any thing in Christianity appears to them probable, or improbable; consistent, or inconsistent; agreeable to what they should have expected, or the contrary; wise and good, or ridiculous and useless; is perfectly irrelevant."—M'Ilvaine's Evidences, p. 523.
"God's providence is higher, and deeper, and larger, and stronger, than all the skill of his adversaries; and his pleasure shall be accomplished in their overthrow, except they repent and become his friends."—Cox, on Christianity, p. 445.
"A just relish of what is beautiful, proper, elegant, and ornamental, in writing or painting, in architecture or gardening, is a fine preparation for the same just relish of these qualities in character and behaviour. To the man who has acquired a taste so acute and accomplished, every action wrong or improper must be highly disgustful: if, in any instance, the overbearing power of passion sway him from his duty, he returns to it with redoubled resolution never to be swayed a second time."—Kames, Elements of Criticism, Vol. i, p. 25.
"In grave Quintilian's copious work, we find
The justest rules and clearest method join'd."—Pope, on Crit.
Lesson Iii.—Parsing.
"There are several sorts of scandalous tempers; some malicious, and some effeminate; others obstinate, brutish, and savage. Some humours are childish and silly; some, false, and others, scurrilous; some, mercenary, and some, tyrannical."—Collier's Antoninus, p. 52.
"Words are obviously voluntary signs: and they are also arbitrary; excepting a few simple sounds expressive of certain internal emotions, which sounds being the same in all languages, must be the work of nature: thus the unpremeditated tones of admiration are the same in all men."—Kames, Elements of Crit., i, 347.
"A stately and majestic air requires sumptuous apparel, which ought not to be gaudy, nor crowded with little ornaments. A woman of consummate beauty can bear to be highly adorned, and yet shows best in a plain dress."—Ib., p. 279. "Of all external objects a graceful person is the most agreeable. But in vain will a person attempt to be graceful, who is deficient in amiable qualities."—Ib., p. 299.
"The faults of a writer of acknowledged excellence are more dangerous, because the influence of his example is more extensive; and the interest of learning requires that they should be discovered and stigmatized, before they have the sanction of antiquity bestowed upon them, and become precedents of indisputable authority."—Dr. Johnson, Rambler, Vol. ii, No. 93.
"Judges ought to be more learned than witty, more reverend than plausible, and more advised than confident; above all things, integrity is their portion and proper virtue."—Bacon's Essays, p. 145.
"The wisest nations, having the most and best ideas, will consequently have the best and most copious languages."—Harris's Hermes, p. 408.
"Here we trace the operation of powerful causes, while we remain ignorant of their nature; but everything goes on with such regularity and harmony, as to give a striking and convincing proof of a combining directing intelligence."—Life of W. Allen, Vol. i, p. 170.
"The wisest, unexperienced, will be ever
Timorous and loth, with novice modesty,
Irresolute, unhardy, unadventurous."—Milton.
Improprieties for Correction.
Errors of Adjectives.
Lesson I.—Degrees.
"I have the real excuse of the honestest sort of bankrupts."—Cowley's
Preface, p. viii.
[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the adjective honestest is harshly compared by est. But, according to a principle stated on page 283d concerning the regular degrees, "This method of comparison is to be applied only to monosyllables, and to dissyllables of a smooth termination, or such as receive it and still have but one syllable after the accent." Therefore, honestest should be most honest; thus, "I have real excuse of the most honest sort of bankrupts."]
"The honourablest part of talk, is, to give the occasion."—Bacon's Essays, p. 90. "To give him one of his own modestest proverbs."— Barclay's Works, iii, 340. "Our language is now certainly properer and more natural, than it was formerly."—Bp. Burnet. "Which will be of most and frequentest use to him in the world."—Locke, on Education, p. 163. "The same is notified in the notablest places in the diocese."—Whitgift. "But it was the dreadfullest sight that ever I saw."—Pilgrim's Progress, p. 70. "Four of the ancientest, soberest, and discreetest of the brethren, chosen for the occasion, shall regulate it."—Locke, on Church Gov. "Nor can there be any clear understanding of any Roman author, especially of ancienter time, without this skill."—Walker's Particles, p. x. "Far the learnedest of the Greeks."—Ib., p. 120. "The learneder thou art, the humbler be thou."—Ib., p. 228. "He is none of the best or honestest."— Ib., p. 274. "The properest methods of communicating it to others."— Burn's Gram., Prof, p. viii. "What heaven's great King hath powerfullest to send against us."—Paradise Lost. "Benedict is not the unhopefullest husband that I know."—SHAK.: in Joh. Dict. "That he should immediately do all the meanest and triflingest things himself."—RAY: in Johnson's Gram., p. 6. "I shall be named among the famousest of women."—MILTON'S Samson Agonistes: ib. "Those have the inventivest heads for all purposes."—ASCHAM: ib. "The wretcheder are the contemners of all helps."—BEN JONSON: ib. "I will now deliver a few of the properest and naturallest considerations that belong to this piece."—WOTTON: ib. "The mortalest poisons practised by the West Indians, have some mixture of the blood, fat, or flesh of man."—BACON: ib. "He so won upon him, that he rendered him one of the faithfulest and most affectionate allies the Medes ever had."—Rollin, ii, 71. "'You see before you,' says he to him, 'the most devoted servant, and the faithfullest ally, you ever had.'"—Ib., ii, 79. "I chose the flourishing'st tree in all the park."—Cowley. "Which he placed, I think, some centuries backwarder than Julius Africanus thought fit to place it afterwards."—Bolingbroke, on History, p. 53. "The Tiber, the notedest river of Italy."—Littleton's Dict.
"To fartherest shores the ambrosial spirit flies."
—Cutler's Gram., p. 140.
——"That what she wills to do or say,
Seems wisest, virtuousest, discreetest, best."
—Milton, B. viii, l. 550.
Lesson Ii.—Mixed.
"During the three or four first years of its existence."—Taylor's District School, p. 27.
[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the cardinal numbers, three and four are put before the ordinal first. But, according to the 7th part of Obs. 7th, page 280th, "In specifying any part of a series, we ought to place the cardinal number after the ordinal." Therefore the words three and four should be placed after first; thus, "During the first three or four years of its existence."]
"To the first of these divisions, my ten last lectures have been devoted."—Adams's Rhet., Vol. i, p. 391. "There are in the twenty-four states not less than sixty thousand common schools."—Taylor's District School, p. 38. "I know of nothing which gives teachers so much trouble as this want of firmness."—Ib., p. 57. "I know of nothing that throws such darkness over the line which separates right from wrong."—Ib., p. 58. "None need this purity and simplicity of language and thought so much as the common school instructor."—Ib., p. 64. "I know of no periodical that is so valuable to the teacher as the Annals of Education."—Ib., p. 67. "Are not these schools of the highest importance? Should not every individual feel the deepest interest in their character and condition?"—Ib., p. 78. "If instruction were made a profession, teachers would feel a sympathy for each other."—Ib., p. 93. "Nothing is so likely to interest children as novelty and change."—Ib., p. 131. "I know of no labour which affords so much happiness as that of the teacher's."—Ib., p. 136. "Their school exercises are the most pleasant and agreeable of any that they engage in."—Ib., p. 136. "I know of no exercise so beneficial to the pupil as that of drawing maps."—Ib., p. 176. "I know of nothing in which our district schools are so defective as they are in the art of teaching grammar."—Ib., p. 196. "I know of nothing so easily acquired as history."—Ib. p. 206. "I know of nothing for which scholars usually have such an abhorrence, as composition."—Ib., p. 210. "There is nothing in our fellow-men that we should respect with so much sacredness as their good name."—Ib., p. 307. "Sure never any thing was so unbred as that odious man."—CONGREVE: in Joh. Dict. "In the dialogue between the mariner and the shade of the deceast."—Philological Museum, i, 466. "These master-works would still be less excellent and finisht"—Ib., i, 469. "Every attempt to staylace the language of polisht conversation, renders our phraseology inelegant and clumsy."—Ib., i, 678. "Here are a few of the unpleasant'st words that ever blotted paper."—SHAK.: in Joh. Dict. "With the most easy, undisobliging transitions."—BROOME: ib. "Fear is, of all affections, the unaptest to admit any conference with reason."—HOOKER: ib. "Most chymists think glass a body more undestroyable than gold itself."—BOYLE: ib. "To part with unhackt edges, and bear back our barge undinted."—SHAK.: ib. "Erasmus, who was an unbigotted Roman Catholic, was transported with this passage."—ADDISON: ib. "There are no less than five words, with any of which the sentence might have terminated."—Campbell's Rhet., p. 397. "The one preach Christ of contention; but the other, of love."—Philippians, i, 16. "Hence we find less discontent and heart-burnings, than where the subjects are unequally burdened."—Art of Thinking, p. 56.
"The serpent, subtil'st beast of all the field,
I knew; but not with human voice indu'd."
—MILTON: Joh. Dict., w. Human.
"How much more grievous would our lives appear,
To reach th' eighth hundred, than the eightieth year?"
—DENHAM: B. P., ii, 244.
Lesson Iii.—Mixed.
"Brutus engaged with Aruns; and so fierce was the attack, that they pierced one another at the same time."—Lempriere's Dict.
[FORMULE.—Not proper, because the phrase one another is here applied to two persons only, the words an and other being needlessly compounded. But, according to Observation 15th, on the Classes of Adjectives, each other must be applied to two persons or things, and one an other to more than two. Therefore one another should here be each other; thus, "Brutus engaged with Aruns; and so fierce was the attack, that they pierced each other at the same time."]
"Her two brothers were one after another turned into stone."—Art of Thinking, p. 194. "Nouns are often used as adjectives; as, A gold-ring, a silver-cup."—Lennie's Gram., p. 14. "Fire and water destroy one another."—Wanostrocht's Gram., p. 82. "Two negatives in English destroy one another, or are equivalent to an affirmative."—Lowth's Gram., p. 94; E. Devis's, 111; Mack's, 147; Murray's, 198; Churchill's, 148; Putnam's, 135; C. Adams's, 102; Hamlin's, 79; Alger's, 66; Fisk's, 140; Ingersoll's, 207; and many others. "Two negatives destroy one another, and are generally equivalent to an affirmative."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 191; Felton's, 85. "Two negatives destroy one another and make an affirmative."—J. Flint's Gram., p. 79. "Two negatives destroy one another, being equivalent to an affirmative."—Frost's El. of E. Gram., p. 48. "Two objects, resembling one another, are presented to the imagination."—Parker's Exercises in Comp., p. 47. "Mankind, in order to hold converse with each other, found it necessary to give names to objects."—Kirkham's Gram., p. 42. "Words are derived from each other[185] in various ways."—Cooper's Gram., p. 108. "There are many other ways of deriving words from one another."—Murray's Gram., p. 131. "When several verbs connected by conjunctions, succeed each other in a sentence, the auxiliary is usually omitted except with the first."—Frost's Gram., p. 91. "Two or more verbs, having the same nominative case, and immediately following one another, are also separated by commas." [186]—Murray's Gram., p. 270; C. Adams's, 126; Russell's, 113; and others. "Two or more adverbs immediately succeeding each other, must be separated by commas."—Same Grammars. "If, however, the members succeeding each other, are very closely connected, the comma is unnecessary."—Murray's Gram., p. 273; Comly's, 152; and others. "Gratitude, when exerted towards one another, naturally produces a very pleasing sensation in the mind of a grateful man."—Mur., p. 287. "Several verbs in the infinitive mood, having a common dependence, and succeeding one another, are also divided by commas."—Comly's Gram., p. 153. "The several words of which it consists, have so near a relation to each other."—Murray's Gram., p. 268; Comly's, 144; Russell's, 111; and others. "When two or more verbs have the same nominative, and immediately follow one another, or two or more adverbs immediately succeed one another, they must be separated by commas."—Comly's Gram., p. 145. "Nouns frequently succeed each other, meaning the same thing."—Sanborn's Gram., p. 63. "And these two tenses may thus answer one another."—Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 322. "Or some other relation which two objects bear to one another."—Jamieson's Rhet., p. 149. "That the heathens tolerated each other, is allowed."—Gospel its own Witness, p. 76. "And yet these two persons love one another tenderly."—Murray's E. Reader, p. 112. "In the six hundredth and first year."—Gen., viii, 13. "Nor is this arguing of his but a reiterate clamour."—Barclay's Works, i, 250. "In severals of them the inward life of Christianity is to be found."—Ib., iii, 272. "Though Alvarez, Despauterius, and other, allow it not to be Plural."—Johnson's Gram. Com., p. 169. "Even the most dissipate and shameless blushed at the sight."—Lemp. Dict., w. Antiochus. "We feel a superior satisfaction in surveying the life of animals, than that of vegetables."—Jamieson's Rhet., 172. "But this man is so full fraughted with malice."—Barclay's Works, i11, 205. "That I suggest some things concerning the properest means."—Blair's Rhet., p. 337.
"So hand in hand they pass'd, the loveliest pair
That ever since in love's embraces met."
—Milton, P. L., B., iv, l. 321.
"Aim at the high'est, without the high'est attain'd
Will be for thee no sitting, or not long."
—Id., P. R., B. iv, l. 106.