cóem 'lovely': cóemem sen 'old': sinem
toíseeh 'leading': toísigem, toísechem follus 'clear': faillsem
réil 'clear': rélem. But ard 'high': ardam
déod(a)e 'divine': déodam (Fél.) ans(a)e 'difficult': ansam.
371. In Ml. the superlative is often found with a double suffix -imem, occasionally -amam
; e.g.
(h)úasal 'high': húaislimem beside húaislem somm(a)e 'rich': sommaimem
fírián 'just': fíriánamam.
saíbibem Ml. 3a5, from saíb 'false', and foirsingigem 67d4, from fairsiung 'wide', are probably scribal
errors.
-234
OTHER FORMATIONS
372. An archaic type is represented by a few examples in which the forms of comparison have the same root as the positive but are formed without its suffix. In the equative some of them have the ending -ri
instead of -ithir, in the comparative -a instead of -(i)u.
POSITIVE EQUATIVE COMPARATIVE SUPERLATIVE
il 'many' lir lia
lethan 'broad' lethithir, -idir (le (i )thir ) letha
már mór 'great, much' móir mó móo máo móu máa (má ) móa máam (mám ) moam
oac óac 'young' óa (also 'less') óam
remur 'thick' remithir
sír 'long' sia sía siam
trén 'strong'
(*treksno- ?) tresithir tressa tressam
For móir (moir Ml. 55d11) see Zimmer's collection in KZ. XXVII.370, n.l.
In BDD. §§ 58, 61, 128 what appears to be the equative of sir is variously written in the (late) MSS. sithir siathir, and sithithir -idir (cp. § 365, 4 ).
373. A few adjectives form their comparative and superlative (the equative is not found) from roots altogether different from those of the positive:
POSITIVE COMPARATIVE SUPERLATIVE
accus ocus 'near' nessa 1 nessam
bec(c) 'small, few' laugu lugu, laigiu lugam, lugimem (Ml.)
maith, dag - 'good' ferr dech, deg
olc, droch - 'bad' messa messam
1With assa (§ 377): nesso assa nesso Wb. 12b34a (cp. RC. IX. 474, 6).
ANALYSIS OF THE FORMS OF COMPARISON
374. In the normal comparative -u is the remnant of a Celtic ending -i + ̯ūs, < -i + ̯ōs. This, on the evidence of Lat. -ior, Avest. -yå, was formerly the ending of the nom. sg. masc. (and perhaps fern.) of the comparative; in Irish it became the universal form. A trace of the final -s survives in the
-235
non-lenition of de when attached to a comparative ( § 378 ; written -te, -ti in Mid.Ir.).
In the superlative the Britannic ending--OW. -ham (hinham 'eldest') Mid. W. -haf--and the vowel of Ir. -em point to an earlier suffix -isamo-, -isamā-, which, like the ending of Lat. facillimus < *facil-(i)sumo-s,
derives from a primary form -ism + ̥o-; cp. also -issimus. This suffix is clearly seen in Gaul. (Marti) Rigisamo, and Οϭξισαμη (Strabo), name of the Île d'Ouessant. Bret. Eussa ( 9th cent.Ossam) = W. uchaf 'highest'.
The formation of the degrees of comparison directly from the root ( § 372 ) represents the older method, usual in Sanskrit and found also in Greek. Cp. further the similarly formed abstracts lethet, remet reme, treis(s)et treisse. lagat (meiss 'evil' (?) Met. Dinds. III.382, 23). Originally dech (also deg by analogy with dag- 'good') may well have been a noun = Lat. decus 'ornament, glory'. Cp. the corresponding use of forg(g)u 'choice object', 'the best of', from which the superlative foircimem, forrcimem 'best' in Ml. is apparently formed. The form ferr has been compared with Lith. viršùs, O.Slav. vrɳchɳ 'summit', and cognate words; but the corresponding Brit. well- (W. gwell, etc.) 'better' suggests rather that both represent a derivative of wer (the earlier form of the Ir. prep. for, § 838 ), perhaps *wer-lo-s, with
different assimilation of rl. A plural form ferra sometimes occurs later, e.g. Anecd. II. 62 § 22. nessam, W. nesaf, appears in Osc. nessimas nora. pl. fem. '(the) nearest', Umbr. nesimei adv. 'next to'. messam is equated with Osc. messimass 'medioximas' (?) by Pedersen (II. 120).
375. The comparative ending -a (already found in Wb., hence not *-e, -*ae) is difficult to account for. It is
not found in the corresponding Britannic forms: Mid. W. llet (superl. llettaf) = letha, ieu = óa, hwy = sia. trech = tressa, nes = nessa. It might, indeed, have been lost by these; on the other hand, the fact that the Mid. W. comparatives uch ' higher ' and i~~ 'lower' are paralleled by suffixless forms in Irish (ós, ís 'above, below' §§ 850, 844, úais, adj. and noun, 'high, very high, too high', superl, úaissem Ält. ir. Dicht. I.29, 1) suggests that the ending -a represents a secondary development in Irish. The starting-point of this development has been sought in lia 'more' and sia 'longer'. The latter and W. hwy could both go back to sei(s) < sē-is, with the weak grade of the comparative suffix, -is (beside -ios, -i + ̯ōs); Mid. W. llet may also have lost -is. So too lia could go back to *plē-is. In Irish, according to this view, *sē, *lē were
diphthongized to sía. lía, and owing to the tendency of diphthongs and long vowels in final syllables to disyllabic pronunciation, -a came to be felt as an ending, like the -u of other comparatives. Then, on the model of sïa 'longer', forms like letha 'broader', etc., developed.
It is very doubtful, however, if final ē was normally diphthongized ( § 53 ). Hence other possible
explanations must be considered. The variation between -u and -a found in mó máo ( < *máu) and máa
má appears to be old (in móu Ml. etc., the -u has been freshly added); for to the former was probably due the change of quality in the positive már > mór (already in
-236
Wb.), and the latter survives in the petrified expression nammá 'only' (lit. 'not more'). The explanation may be that beside the masc. fem. form *mái + ̯ōs (> māūs) there was also a neuter form *mā(i + ̯)os
(whence Ir. má). A trace of the ending -i + ̯os may also survive in ire (íre) 'farther' (the longer form ireiu or irea Thes. II.30, 33 is probably artificial; cp. iru Laws I.120, 20, superl. hírem O'Dav. 1066). As the pronunciation of má, máa was almost disyllabic, the ending -a could equally well have been taken over from this word, where it would have been supported by the disyllabic superlative máam.
See further Sommer, IF. XI.232 ff., Osthoff (and Brugmann), Morpholog. Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der indogerm. Sprachen VI.263 ff.
376. The Irish equative is doubtless connected with the Britannic (as to which see Loth, RC. XVIII.392 ff., 'Remarques et Additions à l'Introduction to Early Welsh de Strachan', pp. 56 ff.). The latter is normally formed by prefixing the prep. cyn- to the adjective and adding the suffix Mid.W. -het, e.g. Mid.W. kynduhet 'as black (du)'. Forms without cyn- are sometimes used, e.g. gwennet gwanec 'as white (fem.) as a wave'. But such forms usually have exclamatory force, e.g. Mod.W. dued y nos 'how black the night is!', 'what a black night!'; cp. Mid.Bret. cazret den 'what a fine (cazr) man!'. That the -h- is the same as that of the superlative, i.e. represents original -is-, the weak grade of the comparative suffix -i + ̯os-, is suggested by the fact that adjectives with 'irregular' comparative stems usually form their equative from these stems also; e.g. Mid.W. (cyn-)nesset, cp. compar. nes 'nearer'; hawsset, compar. haws, from hawđ 'easy', etc. The normal suffix was therefore -iset.. . As intervocalic s completely disappears in Irish, the suffix -ithir, which on the evidence of dénithir began with a palatal vowel, may contain -iset.. . The vowel before th is never elided. This might be regarded as a further indication that the medial syllable
represents an original disyllable; on the other hand, it may be explained on different lines by assuming an ending -tri- (with no intervening vowel between t and r) to have been the older form. But the Britannic
forms show no trace of -r-, and cannot have lost it by a secondary development. Irish lir and móir have the ending ri without t(h). It is doubtful whether le(i)thir (e.g. ZCP. XVIII.296) also belongs here or is
merely a shortening of *lethithir (lethidir LU 5866). In lir the short i is difficult to account for; the radical
form of the comparative was originally plē- (cp. Skt. prāyaḥ 'mostly'), and the equative is not to be separated from the comparative. Perhaps lĭ- spread from the comparative in place of earlier *lír. The latter
may be compared with Lat. plērus 'for the most part', plērī-que, and Armen. lir (i-stem) 'plenty'. It seems probable that W. mor, Bret. and Corn. mar, used before adjectives in the sense of 'as' or 'so very', correspond to Ir. móir. To these models the r-ending of the Irish forms in -ithir may perhaps be ascribed. There are, in fact, isolated examples of such equatives formed from nouns. That métithir should have displaced earlier móir is not surprising, for méit 'size, quantity' is itself used for 'as great, as much' (cp. § 876 ); but némithir 'as bright', from níam 'brightness', also occurs ( RC. XXIV.56).
-237
A different explanation of the Irish equative (without reference to the Britannic forms) is offered by Krause, ZCP. XVII.33 ff. He takes the forms in -ithir to be petrified denominative verbs (deponent 3 sg. pres. ind.). But it is unlikely that the two branches of Celtic should have independently evolved different formations for the equative (which is not one of the original IE. degrees of comparison). Britann. -et could, it is true, represent a verbal ending, and the use of the accusative after the equative in Irish might be explained by assuming the verb to have been transitive. Still the whole theory remains unconvincing.
377. To express continuous increase ('more and more') assa (geminating, cp. § 243, 3 ) is inserted between two comparatives; e.g. móo assa moó; messa assa-mmessa 'worse and worse' Wb. 30c25. Cp.
W. ysywaeth 'more's the pity' (from gwaeth 'worse'), Bret. siouaz, Corn. soweth 'alas!'.
More rarely the comparative followed by ar chách (lit. 'for each', i.e. 'every time') is used for this purpose, e.g. Wb. 13d29, Ml. 71c1.
378. Adverbial 'the' with the comparative (Lat. eo) is expressed by enclitic de (lit. 'therefrom', § 435) attached to the comparative; e.g. áigthidiu-de 'the more dreaded' Wb. 23d23.
The actual degree of more or less is preceded by the prep. i n; e.g. máa i n-óensill(aib) 'greater by one
syllable' Sg. 40b7; a cóic indid óa '(the) five by which it is less' Thes. II.20, 40 f.