-er_, there are two
additions to the root. The same is the case with the superlative,
_fruit-full-est_.

s. 434. In the Chapter on the Comparative Degree is indicated a refinement
upon the current notions as to the power of the comparative degree, and
reasons are given for believing that the fundamental notion expressed by
the comparative inflexion is the idea of comparison or contrast between
_two_ objects.

In this case, it is better in speaking of only two objects to use the
comparative degree rather than the superlative--even when we use the
definite article _the_. Thus--

This is _the better_ of the two

is preferable to

This is _the best_ of the two.

This principle is capable of an application more extensive than our habits
of speaking and writing will verify. Thus to go to other parts of speech,
we should logically say--

Whether of the two,

rather than

Which of the two.

Either the father or the son,

but not

Either the father, the son, or the daughter.

This statement may be refined on. It is chiefly made for the sake of giving
fresh prominence to the idea of duality, expressed by the terminations -er
and -ter.

s. 435. The absence of inflection simplifies the syntax of adjectives.
Violations of concord are impossible. We could not make an adjective
disagree with its substantive if we wished.

* * * * *

CHAPTER IV.

SYNTAX OF PRONOUNS.

s. 436. _Pleonasm in the syntax of pronouns._--In the following sentences
the words in italics are pleonastic:

1. The king _he_ is just.
2. I saw _her_, the queen.
3. The _men_, they were there.
4. The king, _his_ crown.

Of these forms, the first is more common than the second and third, and the
fourth more common than the first.

s. 437. The fourth has another element of importance. It has given rise to
the absurd notion that the genitive case in -'s (_father-'s_) is a
contraction from _his_ (_father his_).

To say nothing about the inapplicability of this rule to feminine genders,
and plural numbers, the whole history of the Indo-Germanic languages is
against it.

1. We cannot reduce _the queen's majesty_ to _the queen his majesty_.

2. We cannot reduce _the children's bread_ to _the children his bread_.

3. The Anglo-Saxon forms are in -es, not in _his_.

4. The word _his_ itself must be accounted for; and that cannot be done by
assuming it to be _he_ + _his_.

5.