Irregular comparison

Date: 2015-10-07; view: 492.

2.1.4.1. Some irregularly compared adjectives derive their comparatives and superlatives by suppletion, i.e. from other roots than the positive:

bad

} worse worst OE yfel (>evil) wiiersa wierst

ill

good better best OE god betra betst

little less least OE lytel lœssa lœst

much more most OE micel mara mœst

Comparison by means of suppletion is also well known in the other Germanic languages (German gut, besser, am besten; Dutch goed, beter, best; Danish god, bedre, bedst), as it is in other Indo-European languages, Latin bonus, melior, optimus.

2.1.4.2. The historical facts about the comparison of far are rather complicated. The comparative further stems from OE fur ra, which itself, however, is based on the adverb forþ 'forth' and not on feor(r), which is the origin of ModE far. Most likely, the superlative furthest is formed on the analogy of further seeing that the form attested in OE had the suffis -mest: forþmest <…>. The comparison in OE, cp. feor(r), was fierra, fierrest, but in ME a confusion with further takes place, leading to the emergence of the comparison fer, ferther, ferthest (of which the -a- forms are regular reflexes, cp. er > ar in the 14^th – 15th centuries: person > parson, ferme > farm <…>).

2.1.4.3. In LateOE /d/ and /t/ were doubled (i.e. lengthened) before /r/, and the result was that a preceding long vowel was shortened (or that vowel lengthening in open syllables was prevented). In ME and in EarlyModE there were many comparatives (and by analogy with this, many superlatives) which seen in the light of the positive had short (shortened) stem vowels, but today there are very few left, cp. latter (OE lœtra) and utter (OE ūt(er)ra), and none of these are real comparatives <…>). It might be added that the shortened vowel in hotter has analogically penetrated into the positive, cp. OE hāt, ME hōt, which would regularly have yielded ModE / h ύ t /.

But to return to latter – this is a regular form, and the same holds true of last (< OE latost with syncopation of o and loss of t before st); later and latest are new formations (ME, EarlyModE), the accented vowel of which having been introduced by analogy with that of the positive.

2.1.4.4. Besides less, little also has the comparative form lesser. As suggested above (2.1.4.1.), less is the regular reflex of OE lœssa. With its -er suffix, lesser is a double comparative, a phenomenon that was quite widespread in LateME and EarlyModE; in Shakespeare, e. g., one may come across forms like more larger and worser.

2.1.4.5. The (partly) obsolete comparison nigh, near, next can be traced straight back to OE neah, nearra, nehst(a). What is usually considered to be the regular comparison in ModE (near, nearer, nearest), has as its starting point the original comparative form, which acquires positive meaning during the first centuries of the ModE period (perhaps because of association with far), and new analogical forms with suffixes emerge in the comparative and the superlative. The following examples from Shakespeare show the transitional vacillation between the two comparative forms: the near in blood, the nearer bloody (Macbeth <…>). It might be mentioned that the Modern Danish positive nœr is also an old comparative – the original positive has been retained in the first part of nabo, cp. ModE neighbour, and the old superlative is represented by nœste, cp. next.

2.1.4.6. The so-called irregular comparative and superlative forms of old, viz. elder and eldest, should be explained in terms of i-mutation <…>. In OE (Anglian) ald, œldra, œldest, the vowel œ in the comparative and the superlative is due to fronting of the stem vowel a before i in the following suffixes (*-iza and -ist). Judging from the ME evidence, this œ seems to have developed into e by the end of the OE period, 'no doubt due to the influence of the palatalized consonant group which followed it' <…>. OE had quite a few, very common adjectives with i-mutation in the comparative and the superlative (cp. Danish ung, yngre, yngst; German lang, länger, am längsten), but the analogical influence exerted by non-mutated forms has been so strong that elder, eldest are the only remainders of this inflexional type in ModE. They have probably survived because of their high degree of specialization (used primarily of the sequence of brothers and sisters). Cp. Dutch which has not only jong, jonger, jongst and lang, langer, langst, but also oud, ouder, oudest with unmutated vowels.

2.1.5. In some words the ending -most is used to designate the superlative, e.g. utmost, innermost, centremost. Etymologically, the suffix consists of two elements which both denote the superlative: an m-suffix as we know it in Latin primus, optimus and OE forma 'first', hindema 'last', plus the normal suffix -est. However, this newly formed compound was as early as in LateOE identified with mœst 'most', written -mœst, later -most.

2.1.6. The periphrastic comparison of adjectives with more and most goes back to ME and can be seen as yet another indication that the English language has moved from a synthetic type of language towards an analytic one. French influence may have accelerated the development, but it is worth noticing (1) that French employs the same word in the comparative and the superlative: plus petit, le plus petit; (2) that French and English adjectives are exposed to periphrastic comparison at an equally early stage; and (3) that there were periphrastic tendencies already in LateOE, <…>. An argument in favour of foreign influence is that periphrasis is less common in the ModE dialects than in Standard English.

In ME there were no hard-and-fast rules governing the use of periphrasis vs. inflexional comparison. Only in EarlyModE (starting in the 15th century) did the tendency arise to use periphrastic comparison with more and most in long words.

The 'absolute superlative', i.e. the superlative used with no signification of comparison in mind, is usually rendered by most + the positive in ModE: you are most kind. The absolute type of periphrasis, which emerges at about the same time as does the relative periphrastic construction, may be due to Latin influence.

The less frequent synthetic absolute superlative (with the purest intention, etc.) may have come into use somewhat later (16th century) than the most-construction even if there may be earlier examples <…>.