narrower or more narrow?
Bernhard Katzer
According to our grammar rules the comaprison of "narrow" should be
"narrower, narrowest".
Is also acceptable to use "more narrow, most narrow"?
Thanks again.
Bernhard
Joanne Marinelli
"Bernhard Katzer" <bka...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d3gkdn$3tf$04$1...@news.t-online.com...
modified by an adjective like more, because superlatives are already dealing
with degree.
Example:
This is the narrowest road in the town.
However, context is the supreme arbiter of usage, and I would not be aghast
at a phrase like "more narrow" if it is necessary, though I admit I can't
think of when it would be.
Joanne
Raymond S. Wise
The rules shown at
http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/ADJECTIVES5.cfm
seem to be a pretty sound guide for showing when "-er" and "-est" must
be used to form the comparative and superlative, respectively, and when
"more" and "most" must be used, and when either "er"/"-est" or
"more"/"most" are acceptable.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Nico
"Bernhard Katzer" <bka...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:d3gkdn$3tf$04$1...@news.t-online.com...
Hello Bernhard,
I am not a native speaker, so take my view cum grano salis.
I think that in many languages at the moment there is a development towards
phrases like 'most narrow' etc.
At least, that's what I see in my own language (Dutch).
We, too, tend to form degrees of comparison by adding 'er' and '(e)st' for
shorter words.
However, young speakers tend to prefer the 'meer-meest' [more-most]
approach.
And so, in Dutch we now see 'meest mooi' instead of 'mooist'.
The funny thing is, nobody would dream of saying 'meer mooi' instead of
'mooier'.
[The Dutch word 'mooi' means 'beautiful', if you are curious to know ...]
I am not really a linguist, but this reminds me of what I used to be taught
in school about the Latin 'absolute superlative'.
If I remember correctly, such a superlative in Latin carries a strong
emphasis, not really an element of comparison at all.
Would that tie in with modern usage, which, I am sorry to say, may at times
want moderation and subtlety?
Nico
gcar...@ssfmail.ssfusd.k12.ca.us
I just wanted to make a comment about that. Italian still has an
absolute superlative an a relative superlative and they are both very
much used.
GFC
gcar...@ssfmail.ssfusd.k12.ca.us
Joanne Marinelli wrote:
> "Bernhard Katzer" <bka...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:d3gkdn$3tf$04$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > Hello again,
> > According to our grammar rules the comaprison of "narrow" should be
> > "narrower, narrowest".
> > Is also acceptable to use "more narrow, most narrow"?
> > Thanks again.
> > Bernhard
> >
> >
> The general rule of thumb is that the superlative doesn't need to be
> modified by an adjective like more,
I don't think superlatives are ever modified by "more". Are they? Did
you perhaps mean "most"?
more narrow = comparative
the most narrow = superlative
because superlatives are already dealing
> with degree.
>
They are dealing with degree if they are preceded by most or have a
suffix (~est). The word narrow by itself does not deal with degrees.
I think Bernhard was asking whether the use of more and most instead of
~er and ~est is acceptable. I believe the rule says that 2 syllable
adjectives take "more" and "most". However, words ending in Y and OW
use the suffixes for the comparative and superlative. Even though
narrower and the narrowest are the correct forms, more narrow and the
most narrow seem to be catching on.
GFC
Joanne Marinelli
<gcar...@ssfmail.ssfusd.k12.ca.us> wrote in message
news:1113547600.2...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Joanne Marinelli wrote:
> > "Bernhard Katzer" <bka...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:d3gkdn$3tf$04$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > > Hello again,
> > > According to our grammar rules the comaprison of "narrow" should be
> > > "narrower, narrowest".
> > > Is also acceptable to use "more narrow, most narrow"?
> > > Thanks again.
> > > Bernhard
> > >
> > >
> > The general rule of thumb is that the superlative doesn't need to be
> > modified by an adjective like more,
>
> I don't think superlatives are ever modified by "more". Are they? Did
> you perhaps mean "most"?
> more narrow = comparative
> the most narrow = superlative
>
> because superlatives are already dealing
> > with degree.
> >
>
> They are dealing with degree if they are preceded by most or have a
> suffix (~est). The word narrow by itself does not deal with degrees.
I disagree with you here. Narrow is already an implied comparison with
something wider, so it is a word dealing with degree.
> I think Bernhard was asking whether the use of more and most instead of
> ~er and ~est is acceptable.
And to that I posted context is the ultimate guide, without differeniating
between the comparative and the superlative, as did Raymond.
I believe the rule says that 2 syllable
> adjectives take "more" and "most". However, words ending in Y and OW
> use the suffixes for the comparative and superlative. Even though
> narrower and the narrowest are the correct forms, more narrow and the
> most narrow seem to be catching on.
>
Screw the rules. One can conceive of a sentence like "This is the marshiest
area of Florida I've been to on foot."
Joanne
gcar...@ssfmail.ssfusd.k12.ca.us
> <gcar...@ssfmail.ssfusd.k12.ca.us> wrote in message
> news:1113547600.2...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Joanne Marinelli wrote:
> > > "Bernhard Katzer" <bka...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:d3gkdn$3tf$04$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > > > Hello again,
> > > > According to our grammar rules the comaprison of "narrow"
should be
> > > > "narrower, narrowest".
> > > > Is also acceptable to use "more narrow, most narrow"?
> > > > Thanks again.
> > > > Bernhard
> > > >
> > > >
> > > The general rule of thumb is that the superlative doesn't need to
be
> > > modified by an adjective like more,
Again that statement does not make sense. When is a superlative ever
modified by "more". Can you give me an example?
> >
> > I don't think superlatives are ever modified by "more". Are they?
Did
> > you perhaps mean "most"?
> > more narrow = comparative
> > the most narrow = superlative
> >
> > because superlatives are already dealing
> > > with degree.
> > >
> >
> > They are dealing with degree if they are preceded by most or have a
> > suffix (~est). The word narrow by itself does not deal with
degrees.
>
> I disagree with you here. Narrow is already an implied comparison
with
> something wider, so it is a word dealing with degree.
>
I know that "narrow is narrower than wide (obvioulsy!), but we are not
talking about the meaning of an adjective compared to *another*
adjective. We are talking about degrees of two or more entities that
all have the same characteristic. According to your logic then,
beautiful is already a superlative or a comparative because it's at a
higher degree of beauty than "pretty". We can say the same for "long"
because it's longer than "short". When you use a comprative or a
superlative you compare one characteristic only, in our case "narrow".
You do not compare two charcteristics (as narrow and wide for example.
)One room is 6 feet wide. One room is 7 feet wide, and one is 8 feet
wide. They are all narrow. If you compare each one to a normal room,
then you are right in saying that narrow aready implies a degree. But
that's not what superlatives and compartives do. Comparatives and
superlatives compare items with the same characteristic (in our case
narrow) to each other. Now that you have determined that they are all
narrow, you can determine which is the narrowest.
> > I think Bernhard was asking whether the use of more and most
instead of
> > ~er and ~est is acceptable.
>
> And to that I posted context is the ultimate guide, without
differeniating
> between the comparative and the superlative, as did Raymond.
>
> I believe the rule says that 2 syllable
> > adjectives take "more" and "most". However, words ending in Y and
OW
> > use the suffixes for the comparative and superlative. Even though
> > narrower and the narrowest are the correct forms, more narrow and
the
> > most narrow seem to be catching on.
> >
> Screw the rules.
Wow! I didn't mean to upset you. Please lighten up. This is only a
discussion of comparatives and superlatives. Besides, both you and
Bernhard mentioned the existence of a rule before I did.
One can conceive of a sentence like "This is the marshiest
> area of Florida I've been to on foot."
Yes, one can.
> Joanne
GFC
Joanne Marinelli
<gcar...@ssfmail.ssfusd.k12.ca.us> wrote in message
news:1113634980.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I know that "narrow is narrower than wide (obvioulsy!), but we are not
> talking about the meaning of an adjective compared to *another*
> adjective. We are talking about degrees of two or more entities that
> all have the same characteristic. According to your logic then,
> beautiful is already a superlative or a comparative because it's at a
> higher degree of beauty than "pretty".
And what is wrong with that logic? The human mind doesn't work in a vaccuum.
If one is beautiful then one is more than pretty. To me it is always
implicit that the comparison is there
We can say the same for "long"
> because it's longer than "short". When you use a comprative or a
> superlative you compare one characteristic only, in our case "narrow".
> You do not compare two charcteristics (as narrow and wide for example.
> )One room is 6 feet wide. One room is 7 feet wide, and one is 8 feet
> wide. They are all narrow.
According to the speaker's perception. I might say an 8 foot room is perfect
for me, its degree of narrowness never entering my mind
If you compare each one to a normal room,
> then you are right in saying that narrow aready implies a degree. But
> that's not what superlatives and compartives do.
Again, to me this isn't how language works in the human mind.
narrow
narrower
narrowest
are certainly dealing with like characteristics, but within a framework
where other comparisons are understood even if unstated. In order to say
this is narrow you have to know it isn't wide. If the rooms in the doll
house are tiny and the furniture is minature then the speaker knows why the
word small is too large, and why largeness would in fact be eliminated.
Joanne
Mike Lyle
> <gcar...@ssfmail.ssfusd.k12.ca.us> wrote in message
> news:1113634980.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> I know that "narrow is narrower than wide (obvioulsy!), but we are
>> not talking about the meaning of an adjective compared to
*another*
>> adjective. We are talking about degrees of two or more entities
that
>> all have the same characteristic. According to your logic then,
>> beautiful is already a superlative or a comparative because it's
at a
>> higher degree of beauty than "pretty".
>
> And what is wrong with that logic? The human mind doesn't work in a
> vaccuum. If one is beautiful then one is more than pretty. To me it
> is always implicit that the comparison is there
But that doesn't in any way transfer to _grammatical_ comparison. The
word has here two quite distinct meanings. "Superlative" is
superlative praise, but it isn't the superlative of an adjective.
--
Mike.
gcar...@ssfmail.ssfusd.k12.ca.us
Mike Lyle wrote:
> [...]
>
> But that doesn't in any way transfer to _grammatical_ comparison. The
> word has here two quite distinct meanings. "Superlative" is
> superlative praise, but it isn't the superlative of an adjective.
>
> --
> Mike.
...You are right and that's *exactly* what I was trying to explain to
Joanne.
Of course there are degrees in the meaning of most adjectives. You
can go from ugly to beautiful and everything in between; you can go
from rich to poor; you can go from interesting to boring; you can go
from narrow to wide. You will find degrees in most adjectives (there
are some adjectives which do not imply the notion of degree, like
"square", for example). However, as you pointed out, we are talking
about a *grammatical* comparison. We are not talking about comparing a
characteristic against our own standards. When you do a grammatical
comparison (in other words you form the comparative or superlative of
an adjective), you are comparing one or more adjectives that are the
SAME. You can compare three rooms that are all narrow, four bridges
that are all long, two books that are interesting. When you determine
that these items are long or interesting or whatever, it's because you
have already compared them to your own standard for that
characteristc. That is the first comparison and that's what Joanne
seems to be stuck on. That is *not* a grammatical comparison. The
grammatical comprison comes after that. Now that you have determined
in your mind, based on your life experience and your own standards that
the four bridges are long, which is the longest? That's the grammatical
comparison.
Sorry about the long post.
GFC