s _moe_; and in certain provincial dialects it is
_mo_, at the present time.

Notwithstanding this, i.e., the form being positive, the _power_ of the
word has always been comparative, and meant _more_ rather than _much_, or
_many_.

s. 250. _Less_.--In Anglo-Saxon _laessa_ and _laes_. Here there is no
_unequivocal_ sign of the comparative degree; what, then, is the nature of
the word? Is it a positive form with a comparative power like _moe_? or is
it an old comparative in -s? This is undecided. What does it come from?
Grimm derives it from the Moeso-Gothic root _lasiv_ = _weak_. His doctrine
is doubtful. I cannot but believe that it comes from the same root as
_litt-le_; where the old Frisian form _litich_, shows that the -l is no
essential part of the word, and the Danish form _lille_ gets rid of the t.
Still the word is difficult; indeed it is unexplained.

s. 251. _Near_, _nearer_.--Anglo-Saxon, _neah_; comparative, _nearre_,
_near_, _nyr_; superlative, _nyhst_, _nehst_. Observe, in the Anglo-Saxon
positive and superlative, the absence of the r. This shows that the English
positive _near_ is the Anglo-Saxon comparative _nearre_, and that in the
secondary comparative _nearer_, we have an _excess of expression_. It may
be, however, that the r in _near_ is a mere point of orthography, and that
it is not pronounced; since, in the English language the words _father_ and
_farther_ are, for the most part, pronounced alike.

s. 252. _Farther_.--Anglo-Saxon _feor, fyrre, fyrrest_. The th seems
euphonic, inserted by the same process that gives the [delta] in [Greek:
andros], from [Greek: aner] = man.

_Further_.--Confounded with _farther_, although in reality from a different
word, _fore_. Old High German, _furdir_; New High German, _der vordere_;
Anglo-Saxon, _fyrdhre_.

s. 253. _Former_.--A comparative formed from the superlative; _forma_ being
such. Consequently, an instance of excess of expression, combined with
irregularity.

s. 254. In Moeso-Gothic _sp[^e]dists_ means _last_, and _sp[^e]diza_ =
_later_. Of the word _sp[^e]dists_ two views may be taken. According to one
it is the positive degree with the addition of st; according to the other,
it is the comparative degree with the addition only of t. Now, Grimm and
others lay down as a rule, that the superlative is formed, not directly
from the positive, but indirectly through the comparative.

With the exception of _worse_ and _less_, all the English comparative