Part 30 (1/2)

-- 250 _Less_--In Anglo-Saxon _laessa_ and _laes_ Here there is no _unequivocal_ sign of the coree; what, then, is the nature of the word? Is it a positive form with a comparative power like _moe_? or is it an old comparative in -s? This is undecided What does it come from?

Grimm derives it from the Mso-Gothic root _lasiv_ = _weak_ His doctrine is doubtful I cannot but believe that it comes from the same root as _litt-le_; where the old Frisian form _litich_, shows that the -l is no essential part of the word, and the Danish forets rid of the t

Still the word is difficult; indeed it is unexplained

-- 251 _Near_, _nearer_--Anglo-Saxon, _neah_; comparative, _nearre_, _near_, _nyr_; superlative, _nyhst_, _nehst_ Observe, in the Anglo-Saxon positive and superlative, the absence of the r This shows that the English positive _near_ is the Anglo-Saxon comparative _nearre_, and that in the secondary comparative _nearer_, we have an _excess of expression_ It may be, however, that the r in _near_ is a raphy, and that it is not pronounced; since, in the English language the words _father_ and _farther_ are, for the lo-Saxon _feor, fyrre, fyrrest_ The th seeives the d in ??d???, from ???? = h in reality froh Gerlo-Saxon, _fyrre_

-- 253 _Former_--A co such Consequently, an instance of excess of expression, coularity

-- 254 In Mso-Gothic _spedists_ means _last_, and _spediza_ = _later_ Of the word _spedists_ two views ree with the addition of st; according to the other, it is the coree with the addition only of t Now, Grimm and others lay down as a rule, that the superlative is forh the comparative

With the exception of _worse_ and _less_, all the English comparatives end in -r: yet no superlative ends in -rt, the for, not _wise, wiser, wisert_, but _wise, wiser, wisest_ This fact, without invalidating the notion just laid down, gives additional importance to the comparative fored to r, that we must suppose the superlatives to have been derived The theory being admitted, we can, by approximation, deterree It was introduced _after_ the establishe of -s into -r

CHAPTER XI

THE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE

-- 255 The Anglo-Saxon word for _first_ was _for-m-a_

The root was _for_ = the Latin _prae_, the Greek p??, and being the same combination which occurs in _fore_, _fore-n of the superlative degree

It is the m in the Latin words _pri-m-us_, _inti-m-us_, _exti-m-us_, _ulti-ues; in other words, besides _for-ree; probably older than the usual form, -st, discussed in -- 254 This has some important applications

-- 256 _Former_--This is a relo-Saxon superlative, and its analysis is _for-m-er_, with _excess of inflexion_

-- 257 _Nea-r-est_--Here the r is no part of the original root, as rown out of -ah pronounced as the a in _father_ The true forms are positive, _neah_; comparative, _neah-er_; superlative, _neah-est_ Such, to a certain extent, is really the case

-- 258 _Next_--The superlative of _nigh_, contracted frolo-Saxon forlo-Saxon the letter h was pronounced strongly, and sounded like g or k

This fact is still shown in the spelling; as nigh In the word _next_ this sound is preserved, slightly changed into that of k; _next_ = _nek-st_

-- 259 _Up words like _upmost_ is, that they are compound words, formed by the addition of the word _lo-Saxon language presents us with the following forlish_

Innema (inn-ema), Inmost (in-m-ost)

utema (ut-ma), Outmost (out-m-ost)

Siema (si-ema), Latest

Laetema (laet-ema), Latest

Niema (ni-ema), Nethermost (neth-er-m-ost)

Forma (for-ma), Foremost (fore-m-ost)

aeftema (aft-ema), Aftermost (aft-er-m-ost)