Gram., p. 78.  Contradiction in practice:  “Thomas is wiser than his brothers.”—­Ib., p. 79.  Are not “three or more persons” here compared by “the comparative” wiser?  “In an Iambus the first syllable is unaccented.”—­Ib., p. 123.  An iambus has but two syllables; and this author expressly teaches that “first” is “superlative.”—­Ib., p. 21.  So Sanborn:  “The positive degree denotes the simple form of an adjective without any variation of meaning.  The comparative degree increases or lessens the meaning of the positive, and denotes a comparison between two persons or things.  The superlative degree increases or lessens the positive to the greatest extent, and denotes a comparison between more than two persons or things.”—­Analytical Gram., p. 30 and p. 86.  These pretended definitions of the degrees of comparison embrace not only the absurdities which I have already censured in those of our common grammars, but several new ones peculiar to this author.  Of the inconsistency of his doctrine and practice, take the following examples:  “Which of two bodies, that move with the same velocity, will exercise the greatest power?”—­Ib., p. 93; and again, p. 203, “’I was offered a dollar;’—­’A dollar was offered (to) me.’  The first form should always be avoided.”—­Ib., p. 127.  “Nouns in apposition generally annex the sign of the possessive case to the last; as, ’For David my servant’s sake.’—­’John the Baptist’s head.’ Bible.”—­Ib., p. 197.

OBS. 13.—­So Murray:  “We commonly say, ‘This is the weaker of the two;’ or, ’The weakest of the two;’[178] but the former is the regular mode of expression, because there are only two things compared.”—­Octavo Gram., i, 167.  What then of the following example:  “Which of those two persons has most distinguished himself?”—­Ib., Key, ii, 187.  Again, in treating of the adjectives this and that, the same hand writes thus:  “This refers to the nearest person or thing, and that to the most distant:  as, ‘This man is more intelligent than that.’ This indicates the latter, or last mentioned; that, the former, or first mentioned:  as, ’Both wealth and poverty are temptations; that tends to excite pride, this, discontent.’”—­Murray’s Gram., i, 56.  In the former part of this example, the superlative is twice applied where only two things are spoken of; and, in the latter, it is twice made equivalent to the comparative, with a like reference.  The following example shows the same equivalence:  “This refers to the last mentioned or nearer thing, that to the first mentioned or more distant