‘words which the writers ofthese languages, especially 
, ih mel een has probably formed the 
‘ound on which grammarians have proceeded in call- 
ng the adjective a sort of noun. The declensions 
have given it a similarity of aspect to the’ substantive 
un, ysical reason for aore 
noun. The metaphy 
_. nomenclature assigned by Mr Tooke, that both equally 
contain the name of an object, seems not to have oc- 
_ curred, and labours under the disadvantage of applying 
also to other parts of speech, 
Secr. III. Degrees of Comparison. 
Many adjectives are subjected to variations which 
_ indicate a comparison of the degree in which a quality 
is to be ‘attached, to different objects. There are adjectives 
which do not admit of this variation, because there are 
qualities which do not admit of degrees. Such are some 
of those which denote figure; as, “ circular,” “ qna- 
drangular,” and “ triangular.” Adjectives subjected to 
tees of comparison are those which express A ope ti 
which admit of being more or less intense. No lan- 
is without separate words to signify comparison. 
ut an expression of that act is so frequently required, 
that it has been found convenient to combine the: sign 
of it with the adjective, in the form of a termination, 
.. Three degrees have been enumerated; the positive, 
the comparative, and the superlative. But the positive 
form is the simple state of the adjective, and should not 
be called a degree of comparison. 
. The com ive degree is formed, in Latin, by add- 
ing the syllables ior to the radical letters of the simple 
Sctive the superlative by adding the syllables issi- 
~~ mus ; as mitis, mitior, mitissimus ; in English, by add- 
ing the syllables “ er” and “ est,” as, “ meek, meeker, 
meekest.” When the euphony of our language does 
not admit of this mode of formation, the same thing is 
by prefixing to the simple adjective the ad- 
verbs “ more” and “ most.” Several grammarians have 
described the meaning of these degrees of comparison 
as consisting in this, that the comparative expresses a 
, comparison betwixt two objects, i.e. a comparison of 
ative one with another one; while the superlative expresses 
“ acomparison with many, i. e. with the whole of a class. 
But we find that, the comparative degree may be em- 
pied for comparing an object with many others as 
well as with one ; as when wé say, “‘ He was wiser than 
all his teachers ;”.“‘ Charity is better than a thousand 
sacrifices.” The superlative degree, in its turn, may be 
used when only two objects are compared, as, “ James 
is the wisest of the two.” The difference betwixt these 
two sorts of expression, which should rather be called 
forms than degrees of comparison, is, that the compara- 
tive considers the subjects compared as belonging to 
‘different classes, while the superlative, compares them 
as included in one. When we compare two men, if we 
e the one to the other, we use the comparative, 
and say 3 that he is ¢aller sar boing other ;” but when 
we place the two together to a@ group, and_ point 
_ out the superior rank which one of Molds ie this: 
| + group, we say, “ He is the éa/lest of the two.” 
| ~ An like manner a comparison in which more than two 
| ___ ate concerned may be expressed either by the compara- 
; tive or the superlative. The comparative is thus used 
when we say, “ Greece was more polished than any 
_ other nation of antiquity.” Here Greece is considered 
‘as not belonging to the class mentioned after the words 
YOL, X, PART II. 
GRAMMAR, 
to this, 
417 
«more polished.” For this purpose these nations are Universal 
designated by the term other, “ Greece was none of Grammar. 
those other nations ; it was more polished than they.” 
The same idea is expressed by the superlative when 
the word other is left out; “ Greece was the most po- 
lished nation of antiquity.” We here assign it the high- 
est place in the class of objects among which we num- 
ber it,—the nations of antiquity. A similar option is 
left. in conveying such sentiments as the following: 
« Mr Fox spoke more forcibly than any other member 
of the House ;” which may also be thus expressed, «Mr 
Fox spoke the most forcibly of all the members of the 
House.”’ , 
The comparative is indeed sometimes used instead of 
the superlative where there are only two in a group; 
as when we:say in Latin, senior fratrum, and in Eng- 
lish, “ the elder of the brothers ;’ “the wiser or the 
taller of the two.” ‘The frequency with which the com- 
parative form of the adjective is employed in comparing 
only two, has misled some technical grammarians to 
state it as a principle, that this is the only proper form 
where no more than two objects are concerned, even 
although they should be represented as belonging to 
the same collection or class. But, though habit ad- 
mitted some instances of this phraseology, it is an error 
to form such a rule, and it is injudicious to check any 
tendency to use the) superlative in its original applica- 
tion, ” 
" Secr. IV. Numerals. 
Numerats haye the same relation to the substantive The nume- 
noun as adjectives, and therefore belong to this class rals are ad~ 
of words, | They express a modification or limita- V5 
tion of the idea conveyed by some substantive... Their . 
peculiar object is to denote the degree of frequency 
with which any sort of thought contained in a noun is 
repeated; that is, the frequency of the exemplification 
of a general idea, 
In English, the singular number is sometimes mere-~ Sign of the 
ly distinguished from the plural by the want of the ter- singular. 
minating s, as “ the house’’ for the singular, and “ the 
houses” for the plural, At other times the word “ one,” 
or the word “ an,” or “ a,” is prefixed. “‘ An” and * a” 
have been called by grammarians indefinite articles, 
but in this there is no propriety. They merely signify 
unity, and this is expressed by them in the most defi- 
nite manner. In the French language, they are always 
translated by un. They ought, therefore, to be called 
numeral adjectives. They cannot be prefixed to plural 
nouns, being liar to the singular, or the exhibition 
of an idea without repetition. 
The words “some”’ and “ several” are used as general 
plural adjectives. There are others implying the re~ 
sult of a general comparison with respect to number ; as, 
“few” and “many.” But these words do not describe 
the frequency of the repetition with precision, and for 
this purpose language is furnished with corresponding 
numeral adjectives. One added to one, forms a number 
which has the separate name “ two:” one and one and 
one, or two and one, have the name “ three :” one 
ed once more, or% repetition of two, forms the number 
called ‘‘ four.” Our idea of number, as a separate sub- 
ject of thought.and of language, has no existence. pre- 
vious to our experience in numbering individuals. This 
gives rise to the observation of a general feature in the 
acts of the mind called numbering ; and hence the ge- 
neralization of numbers. Words signifying a particu- 
lar dégree of repetition become applicable to all acts of 
3G 
form. 
