A Handbook of the English Language Part 30

-- 250. _Less_.--In Anglo-Saxon _laessa_ and _laes_. Here there is no _unequivocal_ sign of the comparative degree; what, then, is the nature of the word? Is it a positive form with a comparative power like _moe_? or is it an old comparative in -s? This is undecided. What does it come from?

Grimm derives it from the Mso-Gothic root _lasiv_ = _weak_. His doctrine is doubtful. I cannot but believe that it comes from the same root as _litt-le_; where the old Frisian form _litich_, shows that the -l is no essential part of the word, and the Danish form _lille_ gets rid of the t.

Still the word is difficult; indeed it is unexplained.

-- 251. _Near_, _nearer_.--Anglo-Saxon, _neah_; comparative, _nearre_, _near_, _nyr_; superlative, _nyhst_, _nehst_. Observe, in the Anglo-Saxon positive and superlative, the absence of the r. This shows that the English positive _near_ is the Anglo-Saxon comparative _nearre_, and that in the secondary comparative _nearer_, we have an _excess of expression_. It may be, however, that the r in _near_ is a mere point of orthography, and that it is not p.r.o.nounced; since, in the English language the words _father_ and _farther_ are, for the most part, p.r.o.nounced alike.

-- 252. _Farther_.--Anglo-Saxon _feor, fyrre, fyrrest_. The th seems euphonic, inserted by the same process that gives the d in ??d???, from ???? = man.

_Further_.--Confounded with _farther_, although in reality from a different word, _fore_. Old High German, _furdir_; New High German, _der vordere_; Anglo-Saxon, _fyrre_.

-- 253. _Former_.--A comparative formed from the superlative; _forma_ being such. Consequently, an instance of excess of expression, combined with irregularity.

-- 254. In Mso-Gothic _spedists_ means _last_, and _spediza_ = _later_. Of the word _spedists_ two views may be taken. According to one it is the positive degree with the addition of st; according to the other, it is the comparative degree with the addition only of t. Now, Grimm and others lay down as a rule, that the superlative is formed, not directly from the positive, but indirectly through the comparative.

With the exception of _worse_ and _less_, all the English comparatives end in -r: yet no superlative ends in -rt, the form being, not _wise, wiser, wisert_, but _wise, wiser, wisest_. This fact, without invalidating the notion just laid down, gives additional importance to the comparative forms in s; since it is from these, before they have changed to r, that we must suppose the superlatives to have been derived. The theory being admitted, we can, by approximation, determine the comparative antiquity of the superlative degree. It was introduced _after_ the establishment of the comparative, and _before_ the change of -s into -r.

CHAPTER XI.

THE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE.

-- 255. The Anglo-Saxon word for _first_ was _for-m-a_.

The root was _for_ = the Latin _prae_, the Greek p??, and being the same combination which occurs in _fore_, _fore-m-ost_, &c.

The m was the Anglo-Saxon sign of the superlative degree.

It is the m in the Latin words _pri-m-us_, _inti-m-us_, _exti-m-us_, _ulti-m-us_, &c.

It occurs even in the Gothic tongues; in other words, besides _for-m-a_.

In short, m is an old sign of the superlative degree; probably older than the usual form, -st, discussed in -- 254. This has some important applications.

-- 256. _Former_.--This is a remarkable word: it is a comparative derived from the Anglo-Saxon superlative, and its a.n.a.lysis is _for-m-er_, with _excess of inflexion_.

-- 257. _Nea-r-est_.--Here the r is no part of the original root, as may be seen in -- 251. It has grown out of -ah p.r.o.nounced as the a in _father_. The true forms are positive, _neah_; comparative, _neah-er_; superlative, _neah-est_. Such, to a certain extent, is really the case.

-- 258. _Next_.--The superlative of _nigh_, contracted from _nigh-est_. The Anglo-Saxon forms were _neah_, _nyh-st_, _neh-st_, _nyh-ste_. In Anglo-Saxon the letter h was p.r.o.nounced strongly, and sounded like g or k.

This fact is still shown in the spelling; as nigh. In the word _next_ this sound is preserved, slightly changed into that of k; _next_ = _nek-st_.

-- 259. _Upmost_, &c.--The common statement concerning words like _upmost_ is, that they are compound words, formed by the addition of the word _most_: this, however, is more than doubtful.

The Anglo-Saxon language presents us with the following forms:--

_Anglo-Saxon._ _English._

Innema (inn-ema), Inmost (in-m-ost).

utema (ut-ma), Outmost (out-m-ost).

Siema (si-ema), Latest.

Laetema (laet-ema), Latest.

Niema (ni-ema), Nethermost (neth-er-m-ost).

Forma (for-ma), Foremost (fore-m-ost).

aeftema (aft-ema), Aftermost (aft-er-m-ost).

Ufema (uf-ema), Upmost (up-m-ost).

Hindema (hind-ema), Hindmost (hind-m-ost).

Midema (mid-ema), Midmost (mid-m-ost).

Now the words in question show at once, that, as far as they are concerned, the m that appears in the last syllable of each has nothing to do with the word _most_.

From the words in question there was formed, in Anglo-Saxon, a regular superlative form in the usual manner; viz., by the addition of -st; as _aefte-m-est_, _fyr-m-est_, _laete-m-est_, _si-m-est_, _yfe-m-est_, _ute-m-est_, _inne-m-est_.

Hence, in the present English, the different parts of the syllable _most_ (in words like _upmost_) come from different quarters. The m is the m in the Anglo-Saxon words _innema_, &c.; whilst the -st is the common sign of the superlative. Hence, in separating such words as _midmost_ into its component parts, we should write

Mid-m-ost _not_ mid-most.

Ut-m-ost -- ut-most.

Up-m-ost -- up-most.

Fore-m-ost -- fore-most.

In-m-ost -- in-most.

Hind-m-ost -- hind-most.

Out-m-ost -- out-most.

-- 260. In certain words, however, the syllable _m-ost_ is added to a word already ending in -er; that is, already marked with the sign of the comparative degree.

Neth-er-m-ost. Hind-er-m-ost.

Utt-er-m-ost. Out-er-m-ost.

Upp-er-m-ost. Inn-er-m-ost.

CHAPTER XII.

THE CARDINAL NUMBERS.

-- 261. Generally speaking, the greater part of the cardinal numbers are undeclined. As far as _number_ goes, this is necessary.

_One_ is naturally and exclusively _singular_.

_Two_ is naturally _dual_.

The rest are naturally and exclusively _plural_.

As to the inflection of gender and case, there is no reason why all the numerals should not be as fully inflected as the Latin _unus, una, unum_, _unius_. It is a mere habit of our language that they are not so in English.

CHAPTER XIII.