CHAPTER XII.

THE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE.

§ 363. THE comparative degree is formed from the positive by the addition of the syllable -er; as dark, dark-er; cold, cold-er; rich, rich-er; dry, dry-er; low, low-er.

The superlative degree is formed from the positive by the addition of the syllable -est; as dark, dark-est; cold, cold-est ; rich, rich-est; dry, dry-est; low, low-est.

But the superlative may also be formed from the comparative by changing ther of the comparative into s, and adding t; as dark-er, dark-es, dark-es-t; cold-er, cold-es, cold-es-t; rich-er, rich-es, rich-es-t; dry-er, dry-es, dry-es-t; low-er, low-es, low-es-t.

To understand the reason why this complex and apparently unnecessary process has been noticed, we must remember what has been said concerning the Moso-Gothic language, and the extent to which it preserves the older forms of the Gothic inflections.

The Maso-Gothic Comparative was not formed in r, but in s. -Ald-iza, bat-iza, sut-iza, were the original forms of what became in Old High-German alt-iro, bets-iro, suats-iro, and in English, old-er, bett-er, sweet-er.

This is one fact. Another is, that whilst many languages have a Comparative without a Superlative degree, few or none have a Superlative without a Comparative. Hence, in the case of a Superlative in -st, two views may be taken. According to the one it is the Positive with the addition of st; according to the other, it is the old Comparative in -s with the addition only of t. Now, Grimm, and others, lay down as a rule, that the Superlative is formed, not directly from the Positive, but indirectly through the Comparative.

With the exception of worse and less, all the English Comparatives end in r; yet no Superlative ends in rt, the form being, not wise, wiser, wisert, but wise, wiser, wisest. This fact, without invalidating the notion just laid down, gives additional importance to the Comparative forms in s; since it is from these, before they have changed to r, that we must suppose the Superlatives to have been derived. This theory being admitted, we can, by approximation, determine the comparative antiquity of the Superlative degree. It was introduced into the languages allied to the English, after the establishment of the Comparative and before the change of s into r.

Of the other English superlatives, the only ones that demand a detailed examination, are those that are generally despatched without difficulty; viz. the words in most; such as midmost, foremost, &c. The current view is, that they are compound words, formed from simple ones, by the addition of the superlative term most. Grimm's view is opposed to this. In appreciating Grimm's view, we must bear in mind the phenomena of excess of expression; at the same time we must not depart from the current theory without duly considering a fact stated by Rask; which is, that we have in Icelandic the forms nærmeir, fjærmeir, &c. nearer, and farther, most unequivocally compounded of near and more, and of far and more. The A. S. gives us the following forms :

Besides these, there are in the other allied languages, words like fruma first, aftuma last, miduma middle.

=

Now the words in question show at once, that, as far as

they are concerned, the m that appears in the last syllable of each has nothing to do with the word most.

Hence, from the words in question there was formed, in Anglo-Saxon, a regular superlative form in the usual manner; viz. by the addition of st; as æfte-m-est, fyr-m-est, læte-m-est, sid-m-est, yfe-m-est, ute-m-est.

And, hence, in the present English, the different parts of the syllable most (in words like upmost), come from different quarters. The m is the m in the Anglo-Saxon words innema, &c.; whilst the -st is the common sign of the superlative. In separating such words as midmost into its component parts, we should write

In certain words the syllable m-ost is added to a word already ending in er; that is, to a word already marked with the sign of the comparative degree.

Having accounted for the m in the words just mentioned, we can account for the m in the word former. Former (for-m-er) is a comparative from the Anglo-Saxon superlative forma (for-m-a).

The words inmost, outmost, upmost, midmost, foremost, hindmost, utmost, are doubly superlative.

The words nethermost, uppermost, uttermost, undermost, outermost, and innermost, are trebly superlative.

CHAPTER XIII.

THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS.

§ 364. I-we, us, me-thou-ye.-These constitute the true personal pronouns. From he, she, and it, they differ in being destitute of gender.

These latter words are demonstrative rather than personal, so that there are in English true personal pronouns for the first two persons only.

In most other languages the current pronouns of the third person are, as in English, demonstrative rather than personal. The usual declension of the personal pronouns is exceptionable. I and me, thou and ye, stand in no etymological relations to each other. The true view of the words is, that they are not irregular but defective. I has no oblique, and me no nominative case. And so with respect to the rest.

My.-My, as stated above, is a form originally accusative, but now used in a genitive sense.

Me.-In Anglo-Saxon this was called a dative form. The fact seems to be that both my and me grow out of an accusative form, meh, mec.

That the sound of k originally belonged to the pronouns me and thee, we learn not only from the Anglo-Saxon mec, pec, meh, peh, but from the Icelandic mik, þik, and the German mich, dich. This accounts for the form my; since y = ey, and the sounds of y and g are allied. That both me and my can be evolved from mik, we see in the present Scandinavian languages, where, very often even in the same district, mig is pronounced both mey and mee.

We and our.-These words are not in the condition of I and me. Although the fact be obscured, they are really in an etymological relation to each other. This we infer from the alli

ance between the sounds of w and ou, and from the Danish forms vi (we), vor (our). It may be doubted, however, whether our be a true genitive rather than an adjectival form. In the form ours we find it playing the part, not of a case, but of an independent word. Upon this, however, too much stress cannot be laid. In Danish it takes a neuter form: vor = noster; vort = nostrum. From this I conceive that it agrees, not with the Latin genitive nostrúm, but with the adjective noster.

We, our, and us.—Even us is in an etymological relation to we. That we and our are so, has just been shown. Now in AngloSaxon there were two forms of our, viz. úre (= nostrúm), and user (= noster). This connects we and us through our. From these preliminary notices we have the changes in form of the true personal pronouns, as follows :

1ST PERSON,

1st Term. (for nominative singular).

I. Undeclined.

2nd Term. (for the singular number).

Acc. Me.

3rd Term. (for the plural number).

Nom. Ye and you. Acc. You and ye. Forms in r and -r-s—

Your, yours.

But

We and me have been dealt with as distinct words. it is only for practical purposes that they can be considered to be thus separate; since the sound of m and w are allied.

You.-As far as the practice of the present mode of speech is concerned, the word you is a nominative form; since we say you move, you are moving, you were speaking.

Why should it not be treated as such? There is no absolute reason why it should not. All that can be said is, that the historical reason and the logical reason are at variance. The Anglo-Saxon form for you was eow, for ye, ge. Neither bear any sign of case at all, so that, form for form, they are

VOL. II.