OBS. 7.—­Our grammarians deny the comparison of many adjectives, from a false notion that they are already superlatives.  Thus W. Allen:  “Adjectives compounded with the Latin preposition per, are already superlative:  as, perfect, perennial, permanent, &c.”—­Elements of E. Gram., p. 52.  In reply to this, I would say, that nothing is really superlative, in English, but what has the form and construction of the superlative; as, “The most permanent of all dyes.”  No word beginning with per, is superlative by virtue of this Latin prefix.  “Separate spirits, which are beings that have perfecter knowledge and greater happiness than we, must needs have also a perfecter way of communicating their thoughts than we have.”—­Locke’s Essay, B. ii, Ch. 24, Sec.36, This mode of comparison is not now good, but it shows that perfect is no superlative.  Thus Kirkham:  “The following adjectives, and many others, are always in the superlative degree; because, by expressing a quality in the highest degree, they carry in themselves a superlative signification:  chief, extreme, perfect, right, wrong, honest, just, true, correct, sincere, vast, immense, ceaseless, infinite, endless, unparalleled, universal, supreme, unlimited, omnipotent, all-wise, eternal.” [183]—­Gram., p. 73.  So the Rev. David Blair:  “The words perfect, certain, infinite, universal, chief, supreme, right, true, extreme, superior, and some others, which express a perfect and superlative sense in themselves, do not admit of comparison.”—­English Gram., p. 81.  Now, according to Murray’s definition, which Kirkham adopts, none of these words can be at all in the superlative degree.  On the contrary, there are several among them, from which true superlatives are frequently and correctly formed.  Where are the positives which are here supposed to be “increased to the highest degree?” Every real superlative in our language, except best and worst, most and least, first and last, with the still more irregular word next, is a derivative, formed from some other English word, by adding est or most; as, truest, hindmost.  The propriety or impropriety of comparing the foregoing words, or any of the “many others” of which this author speaks, is to be determined according to their meaning, and according to the usage of good writers, and not by the dictation of a feeble pedant, or upon the supposition that if compared they would form “double superlatives.”

OBS. 8.—­Chief is from the French word chef, the head:  chiefest is therefore no more a double superlative than headmost:  “But when the headmost foes appeared.”—­Scott.  Nor are chief and chiefest equivalent terms:  “Doeg an Edomite, the chiefest of the herdsmen.”—­1 Samuel, xxi, 7.  “The chief of the herdsmen,” would convey a different meaning; it would be either the leader of the herdsmen, or the principal part of them. Chiefest, however, has often been used where chief would have been better; as, “He sometimes denied admission to the chiefest officers of the army.”—­Clarendon, let us look further at Kirkham’s list of absolute “superlatives.”