0
MrGuedes Posted 11 years ago
Grammar
Comparatives/superlatives: -er/-est or more/most?
Hello, guys!
I have a question about the formation of the comparative and superlative forms of the adjectives in English. I learnt that comparatives could be formed by either adding -er or more, and superlatives could be formed by either adding -est or most. I learnt that the suffixes -er and -est were used for short adjectives, whilst more and most were used for long adjectives.
However, it's never been quite clear what constitutes a short or a long adjective. Initially, I was told that, generally, a short adjective would have one or two syllables, and a long one would have more. But this doesn't seem to apply everywhere. For example, I've just read this:
'I will make people scarcer than pure gold, more rare than the gold of Ophir.' (Holy Bible, Isaiah 13:12, New International Version)
Shouldn't it be 'rarer' instead, because 'rare' is a short adjective? Why is it 'scarcer' but 'more rare'? What is the rule?
Thank you so much in advance!
I have a question about the formation of the comparative and superlative forms of the adjectives in English. I learnt that comparatives could be formed by either adding -er or more, and superlatives could be formed by either adding -est or most. I learnt that the suffixes -er and -est were used for short adjectives, whilst more and most were used for long adjectives.
However, it's never been quite clear what constitutes a short or a long adjective. Initially, I was told that, generally, a short adjective would have one or two syllables, and a long one would have more. But this doesn't seem to apply everywhere. For example, I've just read this:
'I will make people scarcer than pure gold, more rare than the gold of Ophir.' (Holy Bible, Isaiah 13:12, New International Version)
Shouldn't it be 'rarer' instead, because 'rare' is a short adjective? Why is it 'scarcer' but 'more rare'? What is the rule?
Thank you so much in advance!
Top answer
Hi, I think you learned the rules correctly. The problem however is that most grammar rules are not applied as strictly by people as most grammarians think they should. Therefore, although there is a standard rule for learners of English, whether foreign or native speakers, people will always find ways to bend the rules or use language in the way they prefer.
- Hi, I think you learned the rules correctly.
- The problem however is that most grammar rules are not applied as strictly by people as most grammarians think they should.
- Therefore, although there is a standard rule for learners of English, whether foreign or native speakers, people will always find ways to bend the rules or use language in the way they prefer.
- com/questions/204889/which-is-more-proper-rarest-or-most-rare My answer in a nutshell: Yes, I do think it should be 'rarer'.
- But as 'more rare' has apparently been in existence for a long time in parallel with 'rarer', I would not say 'more rare' is downright wrong.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
11 Answers
0
Hi,
I think you learned the rules correctly. The problem however is that most grammar rules are not applied as strictly by people as most grammarians think they should. Therefore, although there is a standard rule for learners of English, whether foreign or native speakers, people will always find ways to bend the rules or use language in the way they prefer.
You might want to c
I think you learned the rules correctly. The problem however is that most grammar rules are not applied as strictly by people as most grammarians think they should. Therefore, although there is a standard rule for learners of English, whether foreign or native speakers, people will always find ways to bend the rules or use language in the way they prefer.
You might want to c
00
So... Could we say that, for many cases, there isn't a rule? I mean, there are cases where I have heard both ways. Is it 'stupider' or 'more stupid'? 'Commonest' or 'more common'? 'Simpler' or 'more simple'? 'Wrongest' or 'most wrong'?
I was surprised when I read that passage on the New International Version of the Bible, because it is one of the most common Bible versions, and it is part
I was surprised when I read that passage on the New International Version of the Bible, because it is one of the most common Bible versions, and it is part
00
Rule of thumb:
Use the suffixes (er / est) for one- and two- syllable adjectives.
Use more / most for adjectives of two or more syllables.
There are exceptions.
Be careful of the irregulars (good/better/best) and non-gradable adjectives.
Wrong is not considered gradable.
Use the suffixes (er / est) for one- and two- syllable adjectives.
Use more / most for adjectives of two or more syllables.
There are exceptions.
Be careful of the irregulars (good/better/best) and non-gradable adjectives.
Wrong is not considered gradable.
00
MrGuedesscarcer than pure gold, more rare than the gold of Ophir.I would have done the same. I think it just sounds rough on the ear to add -er to an adjective that already ends in an r. So regardless of rules, I usually choose 'more rare' instead of 'rarer', 'more clear' instead of 'clearer', and so on.
I would not be surprised to he
00
CalifJimI would have done the same. I think it just sounds rough on the ear to add -er to an adjective that already ends in an r. So regardless of rules, I usually choose 'more rare' instead of 'rarer', 'more clear' instead of 'clearer', and so on.That is a very good point. Perhaps there is a phonotactic explanation for this? Or perhaps you were already hinti
00
dokterjokkebrokPerhaps there is a phonotactic explanation for this?I don't know. I was just going by intuition on this one.
00
Hi Jim,
Well, the reason I asked was that as a non-native speaker I sometimes have difficulties pronouncing the word 'rural'. I get tongue-tied if I say it too often. ;-) So I thought that three r's separated by two vowels might be, phonotactically, stretching it a bit for English.
djb
Well, the reason I asked was that as a non-native speaker I sometimes have difficulties pronouncing the word 'rural'. I get tongue-tied if I say it too often. ;-) So I thought that three r's separated by two vowels might be, phonotactically, stretching it a bit for English.
djb
00
dokterjokkebrokthe reason I asked was that as a non-native speaker I sometimes have difficulties pronouncing the word 'rural'.What a coincidence! I always have trouble with that word, too, and I'm a native speaker. 'rural' and 'rarer' both drive me crazy!
00
I have no problem pronouncing either ‘rural’ or ‘rarer’. That's right, both sound weird, particularly ‘rural’ (I believe that, for a time, I also had a problem with that one).
As for ‘rarer’, I don't have a problem, because I speak using a non-rhotic accent; therefore, I say ['?????]. That reduces part of the problem, and means ‘rarer’ and ‘rural’ ['?u???l] bot
As for ‘rarer’, I don't have a problem, because I speak using a non-rhotic accent; therefore, I say ['?????]. That reduces part of the problem, and means ‘rarer’ and ‘rural’ ['?u???l] bot
00
MrGuedesAnd then, of course, there's also ‘solely’, which must be ['s??lli], which literally has two L's in a row, with no vowel in between! How on earth do you pronounce that?This one doesn't bother me.
The first L closes off the first syllable, so it's a darker L (farther back in the throat). The second L begins a new syllable, so it's a lighter L
0
Related Questions