| 词组 | absolute adjectives |
| 释义 | absolute adjectives Absolute adjective is one of the terms used by usage writers to refer to adjectives that are not, or (more often) should not in the view of the writer, be compared or intensified (other terms applied to these words include incomparables and uncomparable adjectives). How many words belong to this class? Here is one commentator's answer: • Our language contains perhaps a score of words that may be described as absolute words. These are words that properly admit of no comparison or intensification —Kilpatrick 1984 A score, perhaps? In the first column of page 1280 of Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, a page chosen at random, we find ultrashort, ultrasonic, ultrasonographic, ultrastructural, ultraviolet, ululant, umbellate, umbelliferous, umber, umbilical, umbilicate, umbonal, umbral—a baker's dozen of adjectives most persons would be hard put to use in the comparative or superlative. It should take no great effort to fill out our score—how about ancillary, residual, aliphatic, Triassic, epoxy, diocesan, diphthongal? The plain fact is that a majority of adjectives in English admit of no comparison—they are of too narrow an application, or too technical, to be so used, or they simply name a quality that cannot exist in degrees. Then why, you may ask, is there a question at all? The reason is simple: the absolute adjectives that concern the usage writers have, almost without exception, actually been used in the comparative, in the superlative, or with an intensifier. Partridge 1942 includes a list of some eighty uncomparable adjectives; Bernstein 1971 gently derides this selection by using some of them, in a quite normal manner, with modifiers such as more and less. But Bernstein has his own treasured list, and so do many other usage writers. It seems to be traditional to list as words not susceptible of comparison words that have, in fact, been compared. The tradition seems to have originated in the 18th century. Lowth 1762 says, "So likewise adjectives, that have in themselves a superlative signification, admit not properly the superlative form superadded," and he cites as examples chiefest and extremest. Lowth found these in poetry, and is inclined to be tolerant of them in that medium. Priestley, revised ed., 1798 also comments on the subject: "... yet it is not uncommon to see the comparative or superlative of such words; being used, either through inadvertency, or for the sake of emphasis." Priestley's approach also seems tolerant. But Lindley Murray 1795 is not tolerant. Murray, who compiled his grammar from many earlier works including those of Lowth, Priestley, and Campbell, and here uses examples from all three, takes Lowth's remarks from their original position in a footnote and elevates them to the status of a rule; he also adds "or comparative" to Lowth's "superlative form." He labels all the examples "incorrect." Murray's Grammar was widely popular and widely imitated. As Murray had elaborated on the rules he took over from Lowth and Priestley, so later grammarians elaborated on Murray. Where Lowth mentioned two adjectives, Murray lists six (plus an etc.); Goold Brown 1851 reproduces the list of Samuel Kirkham, English Grammar in Familiar Lectures (1825), which contains 22 adjectives and concludes with "and many others" and mentions Joseph W. Wright, A Philosophical Grammar of the English Language (1838) as listing 72. Goold Brown, however, does not share the usual view of these adjectives. He begins his discussion by saying, "Our grammarians deny the comparison of many adjectives, from a false notion that they are already superlatives." He then goes on to demonstrate, using Kirk-ham's 22, that they are not superlatives; his method is to show—to use modern terminology—that Kirkham (and all the rest) have confused semantics with morphology. Goold Brown's criticisms do not seem to have affected the issue much, unless they were somehow responsible for the shift in terminology from "superlative" meaning to "absolute" meaning. Usage writers have continued the lists of the pre-Goold Brown grammarians, our modern commentators perhaps having inherited some of the material from late 19th-century handbooks such as those written by William Matthews, Words: their Use and their Abuse (1880), Edward S. Gould 1870, and Alfred Ayres 1881 (all cited in Bardeen 1883). The reason for the mismatch between actual usage and the writers' expressed preference is simple: the lists are wish lists. The reason such words are compared was succinctly summed up as long ago as 1946: Adjectives expressing some quality that does not admit of degrees are not compared when used in their strict or full sense; as, square, perpendicular, circular, absolute, eternal, illimitable, complete, perfect, etc. But such adjectives are often used in a modified or approximate sense, and when so used admit of comparison. • If we say, "This is more perfect than that," we do not mean that either is perfect without limitation, but that "this" has "more" of the qualities that go to make up perfection than "that"; it is more nearly perfect. Such usage has high literary authority —Fernald 1946 To summarize, a majority of adjectives, perhaps a substantial majority, do not admit of comparison simply because they are too technical or have a meaning that truly does not allow such modification. Most of the adjectives called uncomparable by usage writers have, in fact, been compared or modified by adverbs of degree other than more and most, for two reasons. First, they tend to be common words with more than one meaning and are liable to comparison in some senses, if not all. Second, the comparative degree is commonly used to mean "more nearly," as Fernald explains. See also complete, completely; correct; equal 2; essential, adjective; paramount; perfect; preferable; unique. |
| 随便看 |
英语用法大全包含2888条英语用法指南，基本涵盖了全部常用英文词汇及语法点的翻译及用法，是英语学习的有利工具。