[179] L. Murray copied this passage literally, (though anonymously,) as far as the colon; and of course his book teaches us to account “the termination ish, in some sort, a degree of comparison.”—­Octavo Gram., p. 47.  But what is more absurd, than to think of accounting this, or any other suffix, “a degree of comparison?” The inaccuracy of the language is a sufficient proof of the haste with which Johnson adopted this notion, and of the blindness with which he has been followed.  The passage is now found in most of our English grammars.  Sanborn expresses the doctrine thus:  “Adjectives terminating with ish, denote a degree of comparison less than the positive; as, saltish, whitish, blackish.”—­Analytical Gram., p. 87.  But who does not know, that most adjectives of this ending are derived from nouns, and are compared only by adverbs, as childish, foolish, and so forth?  Wilcox says, “Words ending in ish, generally express a slight degree; as, reddish, bookish.”—­Practical Gram., p. 17.  But who will suppose that foolish denotes but a slight degree of folly, or bookish but a slight fondness for books?  And, with such an interpretation, what must be the meaning of more bookish or most foolish?

[180] “‘A rodde shall come furth of the stocke of Jesse.’ Primer, Hen.  VIII.”—­Craven Glossary.

[181] Midst is a contraction of the regular superlative middest, used by Spenser, but now obsolete. Midst, also, seems to be obsolete as an adjective, though still frequently used as a noun; as, “In the midst.”—­Webster.  It is often a poetic contraction for the preposition amidst.  In some cases it appears to be an adverb.  In the following example it is equivalent to middlemost, and therefore an adjective:  “Still greatest he the midst, Now dragon grown.”—­Paradise Lost, B. x, l. 528.

[182] What I here say, accords with the teaching of all our lexicographers and grammarians, except one dauntless critic, who has taken particular pains to put me, and some three or four others, on the defensive.  This gentleman not only supposes less and fewer, least and fewest, to be sometimes equivalent in meaning, but actually exhibits them as being also etymologically of the same stock. Less and least, however, he refers to three different positives, and more and most, to four.  And since, in once instance, he traces less and more, least and most, to the same primitive word, it follows of course, if he is right, that more is there equivalent to less and most is equivalent to least!  The following is a copy of this remarkable “DECLENSION ON INDEFINITE SPECIFYING ADNAMES,” and just one half of the table is wrong:  “Some, more, most; Some, less, least; Little, less, least; Few, fewer or less, fewest or least; Several, more, most; Much, more, most; Many, more most.”—­Oliver B Peirce’s Gram., p. 144.