OBS. 2.—­Churchill here writes plausibly enough, but it will be seen, both from his explanation, and from the foregoing definitions of the degrees of comparison, that there are but three.  The comparative and the superlative may each be distinguishable into the ascending and the descending, as often as we prefer the adverbial form to the regular variation of the adjective itself; but this imposes no necessity of classing and defining them otherwise than simply as the comparative and the superlative.  The assumption of two comparatives and two superlatives, is not only contrary to the universal practice of the teachers of grammar; but there is this conclusive argument against it—­that the regular method of comparison has no degrees of diminution, and the form which has such degrees, is no inflection of the adjective.  If there is any exception, it is in the words, small, smaller, smallest, and little, less, least.  But of the smallness or littleness, considered abstractly, these, like all others, are degrees of increase, and not of diminution. Smaller is as completely opposite to less small, as wiser is to less wise. Less itself is a comparative descending, only when it diminishes some other quality:  less little, if the phrase were proper, must needs be nearly equivalent to greater or more.  Churchill, however, may be quite right in the following remark:  “The comparative ascending of an adjective, and the comparative descending of an adjective expressing the opposite quality, are often considered synonymous, by those who do not discriminate nicely between ideas.  But less imprudent does not imply precisely the same thing as more prudent; or more brave, the same as less cowardly.”—­New Gram., p. 231.

OBS. 3.—­The definitions which I have given of the three degrees of comparison, are new.  In short, I know not whether any other grammarian has ever given what may justly be called a definition, of any one of them.  Here, as in most other parts of grammar, loose remarks, ill-written and untrue assertions, have sufficed.  The explanations found in many English grammars are the following:  “The positive state expresses the quality of an object, without any increase or diminution; as, good, wise, great.  The comparative degree increases or lessens the positive in signification; as, wiser, greater, less wise.  The superlative degree increases or lessens the positive to the highest or [the] lowest degree; as, wisest, greatest, least wise.  The simple word, or positive, becomes [the] comparative by adding r or er; and the superlative by adding st or est, to the end of it.  And the adverbs more and most, placed before the adjective, have the same effect; as, wise, more wise, most wise.”—­Murray’s Grammar, 2d Ed., 1796, p. 47.  If a man wished to select some striking example of bad writing—­of