1808.] 
or words which admit fo only, have, then, 
neither the character nor the significa- 
tion of comparativ es, whatever their CX- 
ternal form, or their He aetie See may 
be. He is ‘declined to. think that such 
words as superior and inferior are not 
construed lke English com paratives, be- 
cause they have no peeves I, on the 
contrary, still think the reason is, that 
they are 2o¢, 1n sense, comparatiy es, but 
either positives, or words a approaching 
nearer to the signification of these, than 
to that of comparatives. Besides, ifsuch 
a word as exterior, (which, if [ rightly re- 
collect, Johnson interprets external, out- 
ward or the like) be a comparative, er- 
ternal would then be, if not precisely a 
regular, yet, at least,a suitable Bae: 
And, if exlertor be a comparative, what 
is extreme to be considered? A superla- 
tive? All are, in my apprehension, 
equally positives. Such words have nei- 
ther the external form nor the intrinsic 
meaning of English comparatives and 
superlatives; and this appears to me the 
reason, that they have not the same con- 
struction. 
“« He is inferior to me,” and the like, I 
conceive to be, strictly speaking, eguiva- 
lent, not to “ hei is lower than I,” or to * he 
is lower [in regard] ¢o me,” but to mean 
nothing pnoke than * he is dow [in regard] 
to me.” ‘ He thinks them clowns to 
him,” in which the appellative is used for 
the attributive, denotes‘ He thinks them 
clownisi, [in revard to him;” but does not 
insinuate 50 ey that he also nay be 
clownish, as * He thinks them more clown- 
ash than he is,” does. The vulgar com- 
monly use our own adjectives in “precisely 
the same way; when they ay He is rich 
tome,” or, more generally, “ He is rich 
to what 1 am.” All such phraseologies 
inply, as I before stated, the existence 
of a relative state, but do not express di- 
rect, technical comparison. That when 
we hear the word superior, or interior, 
mentioned, we have an idea of two states 
related to each other, T have already in- 
tiunated. But what are these two states? 
not a high state, and a higher, or an in- 
ward state ana one more inward, as de- 
noted, comparatively, by Agh, higher, or 
by inward, more inward ; but two states 
contradistinguished from each other by 
words different in kind, a superior one, 
and an inferior one, or an interior one 
and an exterior one; that is, a high one 
and a dow one, an inward one ad an out- 
ward one. The same sense, as in high, 
higher, inward, more inward, is not the 
Further Remarks upon Comparatives. 
293 
basis of their respective imports or bear- 
ings. They denote different states, by 
different properties, and not, according 
to the nature of technical comparison, by 
different degrees of the same property. 
They donot imply a modification of the 
Saine COmMmon term. 
That when these words were first in- 
troduced into our language, they might 
have retained all their original compara- 
tive nature, I shall not dispute ; ; that they 
may retain a portion of it even now, I 
have, I shall not say how justly, already 
conceded ; and that, when a classical 
scholar sees them lined in English, he is 
apt to associate with them the same ideas 
as belong to them originally, is suthciently 
evident. While, however, this may be 
the case; and, although I may not feel 
myself to be at present fully prepared to 
contend for the strict propriety of add the 
following usages, 1 must add that I fre- 
quently find in the critical works of the 
learned, the expressions, ‘‘ the more inte- 
rior parts,” “ dess inferior than,” ‘ so su- 
perior to,” “ very inferior to,” phraseo- 
logies which appear to me utterly incon- 
sistent with the nature of English com- 
paratives, without the supposition of un- 
warrantable or very suspicious ellipses, 
and clearly decisive of the uswal, positive 
acceptations of such adjectives. In proe 
longing this discussion, [ am afraid that I 
trespass on the patience of your readers, 
and may be pronounced guilty of a waste 
of paper, considering the present dearth of 
this article; I shall, therefore, say ne 
more, than that I am, Sir, 
Your’s, &c. 
Crouch End, 
April 5, 1808. 
J. GRANT. 
=a a 
i 
To the Editor of the Monthly Mugazine. 
SIR, 
. G IVE me leave, through the channel 
a 
of your useful Miscellany, to in- 
form your Correspondent G. A. p, 207, 
that I am credibly informed, that upwards 
of seventy post-horses were killed by over= 
driving, and heating, during the late con- 
tested election for Yorkshire, and that 
many of them had been driven from 
eighty to an hundred miles ina day; a cir- 
cumstance which I should hardly have 
thought possible, and which I should not 
have believ ed, had 1 not had it from very 
good authori ity. 
The insertion of this in your next, will 
much oblige, Sir, your constant reader, ¥ 
London, Sith. 
April 5, 1808, 
