292 
est, and fair weather succeeding on the 
Pest day of the month Zulhadjeh, the 
érew discerned the mountains of Kalhat, 
where they arrived on the very day of 
the new moon of Moharrem, 1n the year 
of the Hejira 848 (of Christ 1444, April 
the twenueth.) 
aaa 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, ‘ 
AM very happy to find that my hasty 
observations on comparatives have 
yielded any satisfaction to a person of 
Mr. Singleton’s discrimination ; and beg 
leave to mention to him, that a similar 
idea to that which he suggests, (p. 223) 
bad struck me also, whilst writing, as ap- 
plicable to English comparison. But it 
did not impress upon me the propriety of 
asimilar deduction. In the rough sketch 
whence my remarks were copied, the fol- 
lowing sentence now stands; ‘ Indeed, 
English comparatives having no regular 
positive, do not scem to admit a compara- 
rative construction with than.” Recol- 
lecting, however, that rather, other, and, 
T believe, a few more, which have no re- 
gular positive, are used in comparison, 
that is, admit than after them, I sup- 
pressed this passage, notwithstanding my 
conviction of its being generally, true. 
At the same time, it may be observed, 
that aregular technical comparison be- 
tween two objects necessarily implies a 
positive, andcompels usto infer, that such 
English words once had positives in com- 
mon use, which are now become obsolete. 
Indeed, rath did exist; other always does 
refer to one mentioned before; fore, now 
used only in eomposition, or some similar 
word, may have been the positive of for- 
mer. Late, though usually referred to 
later, belongs also to latter. Eld was 
once used, as the positive of elder; up, 
as in upside, in as in inside, likewise ap- 
pear to have been adjectives of the posi- 
tive degree orstate. If such be the case, 
it may be asked, why, then according to 
the mode of resolving English compari- 
son, do they not all admit the construction 
with than; why do we nat, ex. gr. say 
either “‘ upper than,” or “ upper fo,” in 
the sense of “ higher than,” or relatively, 
since their comparative or their rettive 
construction must have been settled, even 
if a positive be essential to it, before their 
positives became obsolete as adjectives ? 
No other rational answer can, L appre- 
hend, be given, than such as may result 
from some pecidiurity in the signification 
Further Remarks upon Comparatives. 
[May it, 
of these words*, or from the well known 
circumstance, the existence of anomalies 
in every language, coupled with the au- 
thority of usage. ‘This is, perhaps, cuf- 
ting the knot; but if it be not likely to 
be untied, it is the only resource. We 
find, in Latin, an anomaly even of the ge- 
nitive after a comparative, and this, too, 
not the genitive of partition, but that of 
comparison; thus Nec tamen sur mollio- 
rem provocaverat. Apul. Met. ix. p. 
306, for_se or guam ipse erat. 
My objections to considermg certain 
Latin words as English comparatives, 
rested chiefly upon their usual impor: and 
signification, and upon the nature of Eng- 
lish comparison, strictly and technically 
socalled. Tothese, even were they com- 
parative, the yeneral mode which I sug- 
gested cf resulving English comparison, 
could not, apprehend, be applicable. 
In regard to them, the same difference 
still exists between Mr. S. and myself. 
I did not certainly, speak decisively of 
these, although my own opinion respect- 
ing them was almost fixt; because I am 
well aware, that in discussing construc-: 
tions connected with the subject of ety- 
mology, great caution is requisite; and, 
for the same reason, these additional re- 
marks, and repetitions, are offered with. 
the same diffidence, and with becoming 
deference to the ideas of Mr. Singleton. 
My opinion still is, that words when they 
are construed with fo, and not with than, 
* Tam inclined to think, that according 
to their use and signification, several of these 
have lost the designation of comparison, and _ 
have merged into positives. Thus, when’ 
we employ the upper and the under side, we 
do not commonly refer totwo sides both af, 
and to two sides both down 3 of the former of 
which ove is the upper or higher, and of the 
Jatter, one the under or lower: but to one side, 
which is upper or above, contradistinguished 
from another, which is under or below. Thus, 
also, above and over, although, in the exter- 
nal form of the latter, something compara- 
tive may be recognised, are, generally, cm- 
ployed as nearly synonymous, and as equally _ 
positive. The construction and import of 
those words, originally comparative adjectives, 
which we now name prepositions, are easily 
deducible from the principles of this paper. 
Afier, under, and over are adjectives 5 as such 
they cannot govern a Case. Their construc- 
tion appears to be ‘‘ after [in regard to] him,” 
&c. And thus used, their signification is po- 
sitive just as muchas “ behind him,” ** below 
him,” ‘© abewe him,”? words which appear te 
be construed in the like manner. ° 
cr 
