s. 322. _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. The fact that in the English language the words _father_ and _farther_ are, for the most part, pronounced alike, is the key to the forms _near_ and _nearer_. {270} s. 323. _Farther._--Anglo-Saxon _feor_, _fyrre_, _fyrrest_. The _th_ seems euphonic, inserted by the same process that gives the [delta] in [Greek: andros]. _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. 324. _Former._--A comparative formed from the superlative; _forma_ being such. Consequently, an instance of excess of expression, combined with irregularity. Languages have a comparative without a superlative degree; no _language has a superlative degree without having also a comparative one_. s. 325. 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 comparatives end in _r_: yet no superlative ends in _rt_, the form being, not _wise_, _wiser_, _wisert_, but _wise_, _wiser_, _wisest_. This fact, without invalidating the notion just laid down, gives additional importance to the comparative forms in _s_; since it is from these, before they have changed to _r_, that we must suppose the superlatives to have been derived. The theory being admitted, we can, by approximation, determine the comparative antiquity of the superlative degree. It was introduced into the Indo-European tongues after the establishment of the comparative, and before the change of _-s_ into _-r_. I give no opinion as to the truth of this theory. * * * * * {271} CHAPTER XI. THE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE. s. 326. The history of the superlative form, accurately parallel with what has been stated of the comparative, is as follows:-- In Sanskrit there is, 1. the form _tama_, 2. the form _ishta_; the first being the commonest. The same is the case in the Zend.