1. Comparing _third_, _fourth_, _fifth_, &c., with _three_, _four_, and _five_, the formation of the ordinal from the cardinal form may seem simply to consist in the addition of _d_ or _th_. Such, however, is far from being the case. 2. Arguing from the nature of the first two ordinals, namely, the words _first_ and _second_, of which one has been called a superlative and the other a comparative, it may seem a simple matter to associate, in regard to the rest, the idea of ordinalism with the idea of comparison. A plain distinction, however, will show that the case of the first two ordinals is peculiar. _First_ is a superlative, not as compared with its cardinal, _one_, but as compared with the other numerals. _Second_, or _other_, is a comparative, not as compared with its cardinal, _two_, but as compared with the numeral _one_. Now it is very evident, that, if the other ordinals be either comparatives or superlatives, they must be so, not as compared with one another, but as compared with their respective cardinals. _Sixth_, to be anything like a superlative, must be so when compared with _six_. s. 334. Now there are, in etymology, two ways of determining the affinity of ideas. The first is the metaphysical, the second the empirical, method. _This is better than that_, is a sentence which the pure metaphysician may deal with. He may first determine that there is in it the idea of comparison; and next that the comparison is the comparison between _two_ objects, and no more than two. This idea he may compare with others. He may determine, that, with a sentence like _this is one and that is the other_, it has something in common; since both assert something concerning _one out of two objects_. Upon this connexion in sense he is at liberty to reason. He is at liberty to conceive that in certain languages words expressive {279} of allied ideas may also be allied in form. Whether such be really the case, he leaves to etymologists to decide. The pure etymologist proceeds differently. He assumes the connexion in meaning from the connexion in form. All that he at first observes is, that words like _other_ and _better_ have one and the same termination. For this identity he attempts to give a reason, and finds that he can best account for it by presuming some affinity in sense. Whether there be such an affinity, he leaves to the metaphysician to decide. This is the empirical method. At times the two methods coincide, and ideas evidently allied are expressed by forms evidently allied.