0
Usenet Posted 21 years ago
Usage

Narrower or more narrow?

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
  

Top answer

[nq:1]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.

  • [nq:1]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[/nq] The general rule of thumb is that the superlative doesn't need to be modified by an adjective like more, because superlatives are already dealing with degree.
  • Example: This is the narrowest road in the town.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

10 Answers
0
[nq:1]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[/nq]
The general rule of thumb is that the superlative doesn't need to be modified by an adjective like more, because superlatives are already dealing with degree.
Example:
This is the narrowest road i
0
[nq:1]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.[/nq]
The rules shown at
http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/ADJECTIVES5.cfm

seem to be a pretty sound
0
"Bernhard Katzer" (Email Removed) schreef in bericht
[nq:1]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[/nq]
Hello Bernhard,
I am not a native speaker, so take my view *** grano salis.

I think that in many languages at the moment there is a d
0
[nq:2]Hello again, According to our grammar rules the comaprison of ... acceptable to use "more narrow, most narrow"? Thanks again. Bernhard[/nq]
[nq:1]Hello Bernhard, I am not a native speaker, so take my view *** grano salis. I think that in many ... really a linguist, but this reminds me of what I used to betaught in school about the Latin 'absolute superlative'.[/nq]
I just wanted to m
0
[nq:2]Hello again, According to our grammar rules the comaprison of ... acceptable to use "more narrow, most narrow"? Thanks again. Bernhard[/nq]
[nq:1]The general rule of thumb is that the superlative doesn't need to be modified by an adjective like more,[/nq]
I don't think superlatives are ever modified by "more". Are they? Did you perhaps mean "most"?
more narrow = comparative
t
0
I disagree with you here. Narrow is already an implied comparison with something wider, so it is a word dealing with degree.
[nq:1]I think Bernhard was asking whether the use of more and most instead of ~er and ~est is acceptable.[/nq]
And to that I posted context is the ultimate guide, without differeniating between the comparative and the superlative, as did Raymond.

I believe t
0
Again that statement does not make sense. When is a superlative ever modified by "more". Can you give me an example?
[nq:2]I don't think superlatives are ever modified by "more". Are ... (~est). The word narrow by itself does not deal withdegrees.[/nq]
[nq:1]I disagree with you here. Narrow is already an implied comparisonwith something wider, so it is a word dealing with degree.[/nq]I kno
0
[nq:1]I know that "narrow is narrower than wide (obvioulsy!), but we are not talking about the meaning of an adjective ... logic then, beautiful is already a superlative or a comparative because it's at a higher degree of beauty than "pretty".[/nq]
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 i
0
[nq:2]I know that "narrow is narrower than wide (obvioulsy!), but ... comparative because it'sat a higher degree of beauty than "pretty".[/nq]
[nq:1]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[/nq]
But that doesn't in any way transfer to grammatical co
0
[nq:1] 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.[/nq]
...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 ever

Related Questions