A Handbook of the English LanguageHence _other_ and _whether_ (to which may be added _either_ and _neither_) are p.r.o.nouns with the comparative form.
_Other_ has the additional peculiarity of possessing the plural form _others_. Hence, like _self_, it is, in the strictest sense, a substantival p.r.o.noun.
CHAPTER IX.
ON CERTAIN FORMS IN -ER.
-- 237. Preparatory to the consideration of the degrees of comparison, it is necessary to make some remarks upon a certain cla.s.s of words, which, with considerable differences of signification, all agree in one fact, viz., all terminate in -er, or _t-er_.
1. Certain p.r.o.nouns, as _ei-th-er_, _n-ei-th-er_, _whe-th-er_, or _o-th-er_.
2. Certain prepositions and adverbs, as _ov-er_, _und-er_, _af-t-er_.
3. Certain adjectives, with the form of the comparative, but the power of the positive degree; as _upp-er_, _und-er_, _inn-er_, _out-er_, _hind-er_.
4. All adjectives of the comparative degree; as _wis-er_, _strong-er_, _bett-er_, &c.
Now what is the idea common to all these words, expressed by the sign -er, and connecting the four divisions into one cla.s.s? It is not the mere idea of comparison; although it is the comparative degree, to the expression of which the affix in question is more particularly applied. Bopp, who has best generalised the view of these forms, considers the fundamental idea to be that of _duality_. In the comparative degree we have a relation between one object and _some_ other object like it, or a relation between two single elements of comparison: _A is wiser than B_. In the superlative degree we have a relation between one object and _all_ others like it, or a relation between one single and one complex element of comparison: _A is wiser than B, C, D_, &c.
"As in comparatives a relation between _two_, and in superlatives a relation between _many_, lies at the bottom, it is natural that their suffixes should be transferred to other words, whose chief notion is individualised through that of duality or plurality."--"Vergleichende Grammatik," -- 292, Eastwick's and Wilson's Translation.
The most important proofs of the view adduced by Bopp are,--
1. The Sanskrit form _kataras_ = _which of _two_ persons?_ is a comparative form; whilst _katamas_ = _which of more than two persons?_ a superlative form. Similarly, _ekataras_ = _one of two persons_; _ekatamas_ = _one of more than two persons_.
2. The Greek forms, ???te??? = _each_ (_or either_) _out of two persons_; whilst ??ast?? = _each or any out of more than two persons_.
-- 238. The more important of the specific modifications of the general idea involved in the comparison of two objects are,--
1. Contrariety: as in _inner_, _outer_, _under_, _upper_, _over_. In Latin the words for _right_ and _left_ end in -er,--_dexter_, _sinister_.
2. Choice in the way of an alternative; as _either_, _neither_, _whether_, _other_.
-- 239. _Either_, _neither_, _other_, _whether_.--It has just been stated that the general fundamental idea common to all these forms is that of _choice between one of two objects in the way of an alternative_. Thus far the termination -er in _either_, &c., is the termination -er in the true comparatives, _brav-er_, _wis-er_, &c. _Either_ and _neither_ are common p.r.o.nouns. _Other_, like _one_, is a p.r.o.noun capable of taking the plural form of a substantive (_others_), and also that of the genitive case (_the other's money, the other's bread_). _Whether_ is a p.r.o.noun in the almost obsolete form _whether_ ( = _which_) _of the two do you prefer_, and a conjunction in sentences like _whether will you do this or not_? The use of the form _others_ is recent. "_They are taken out of the way as all other._"--Job. "_And leave their riches for other._"--Psalms.
CHAPTER X.
THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE.
-- 240. There are four leading facts here,--
1. _The older form in -s._ In English we say old-er, bett-er, sweet-er; in Old High German they similarly said, alt-iro, bets-iro, suats-iro; but in Mso-Gothic the forms were ald-iza, bat-iza, sut-iza.
2. _Adverbs_ are susceptible of comparison; e.g.--_Come as soon as you can, but do not come sooner than is convenient_.
3. The Anglo-Saxon comparison of the adverbs is different from that of the adjectives; there being one form in -re and -este, another in -or and -ost respectively. Now the first of these was the form taken by adjectives: as _se scearp-re sweord_ = _the sharper sword_, and _se scearp-este sword_ = _the sharpest sword_. The second, on the other hand, was the form taken by adverbs: as, _se sweord scyr scearp-or_ = _the sword cuts sharper_, and _se sweord scyr scearp-ost_ = _the sword cuts sharpest_.
4. In the Anglo-Saxon, the following words exhibit a change of vowel.
_Positive._ _Comparative._ _Superlative._
Lang, Lengre, Lengest. _Long._ Strang, Strengre, Strengest. _Strong._ Geong, Gyngre, Gyngest. _Young._ Sceort, Scyrtre, Scyrtest. _Short._ Heah, Hyrre, Hyhst. _High._ Eald, Yldre, Yldest. _Old._
-- 241. Now the fourth of these facts explains the present forms _elder_ and _eldest_, the comparatives and superlative of _old_, besides which there are the regular forms _old-er_ and _old-est_; between which there is, however, a difference in meaning--_elder_ being used as a substantive, and having a plural form, _elders_.
-- 242. The abverbial forms in -or and -ost, as compared with the adjectival in -re, and -este explain the form _rather_. This rhymes to _father_; the a being full. Nevertheless, the positive form is _rather_ meaning _quick, easy_ = the cla.s.sical root ?ad- in ??d???. What we do _quickly_ and _willingly_ we do _preferably_. Now if the word _rather_ were an adjective, the vowel of the comparative would be sounded as the a in _fate_, as it is, however, it is abverbial, and as such is properly sounded as the a in _father_.
The difference between the action of the small vowel in -re, and of the full in -or effects this difference, since o being a full vowel, it has the effect of making the a full also.
-- 243. The old form in -s will be considered, after notice has been taken of what may be called--
-- 244. _Excess of expression._--Of this two samples have already been given: 1. in words like _songstress_; 2. in words like _children_. This may be called _excess of expression_; the feminine gender, in words like _songstress_, and the plural number, in words like _children_, being expressed twice over. In the vulgarism _betterer_ for _better_, and in the antiquated forms _worser_ for _worse_, and _lesser_ for _less_, we have, in the case of the comparatives, as elsewhere, an excess of expression. In the old High German we have the forms _betseroro_, _meroro_, _ererera_ = _better_, _more_, _ere_.
-- 245. _Better_.--Although in the superlative form _best_ there is a slight variation from the strict form of that degree, the word _better_ is perfectly regular. So far, then, from truth are the current statements that the comparison of the words _good, better_, and _best_ is irregular. The inflection is not irregular, but defective. As the statement that applies to _good_, _better_, and _best_ applies to many words besides, it will be well in this place, once for all, to exhibit it in full.
-- 246. _Difference between a sequence in logic and a sequence in etymology._--The ideas or notions of _thou, thy, thee_, are ideas between which there is a metaphysical or logical connexion. The train of such ideas may be said to form a sequence, and such a sequence may be called a logical one.
The words _thou, thy, thee_, are words between which there is a _formal_ or an _etymological_ connexion. A train of such words may be called a sequence, and such a sequence may be called an etymological one.
In the case of _thou, thy, thee_, the etymological sequence tallies with the _logical_ one.
The ideas of _I_, _my_, and _me_ are also in a logical sequence: but the forms _I_, _my_, and _me_ are not altogether in an etymological one.
In the case of _I, my, me_, the etymological sequence does _not_ tally (or tallies imperfectly) with the logical one.
This is only another way of saying that between the words _I_ and _me_ there is no connexion in etymology.
It is also only another way of saying, that, in the oblique cases, _I_, and, in the nominative case, _me_, are _defective_.
Now the same is the case with _good, better_, _bad, worse_, &c. _Good_ and _bad_ are defective in the comparative and superlative degrees; _better_ and _worse_ are defective in the positive; whilst between _good_ and _better_, _bad_ and _worse_, there is a sequence in logic, but no sequence in etymology.
-- 247. To return, however, to the word _better_; no absolute positive degree is found in any of the allied languages, and in none of the allied languages is there found any comparative form of _good_. Its root occurs in the following adverbial forms: Mso-Gothic, _bats_; Old High German, _pats_; Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon, _bet_; Middle High German, _baz_; Middle Dutch, _bat_, _bet_.
-- 248. _Worse_.--This word is one of two things.
1. It is a positive form with a comparative sense; in which case s is part of the root.
2. It is a comparative degree from the positive form wor- (vair-, wir-, vyr-), in which case s is the s of the Old Mso-Gothic inflexion preserved in this single word.
-- 249. _More_.--In Anglo-Saxon this is _ma_; in the English of the reign of Elizabeth it is _moe_; and in certain provincial dialects it is _mo_, at the present time.
Notwithstanding this, i.e., the form being positive, the _power_ of the word has always been comparative, and meant _more_ rather than _much_, or _many_.