Conundrum: “cleverer” or “more clever”, “simpler” or “more simple” etc












22














I know the rule for making the comparative and superlative form for two-syllable words

ending in y, replace the -y with i and use -er and -est:



hap.pyhappier(the) happiest
ti.dytidier(the) tidiest



And I would say that for two-syllable adjectives which do not end in-y, use more and most:



bor.ingmore boring
wor.riedmore worried
care.fulmore careful
tra.gicmore tragic



However, there are inexplicable exceptions: The Free Dictionary says the comparative and superlative form of clever is cleverer and cleverest. Yet to my ears




He's more clever than I thought




sounds more formal and correct.



Google produces an impressive 48,000 results for "he is more clever than" and 3,980 results for the contracted form, "he's more clever than" compared to only 6,710 results and 19,800 results for "he's cleverer than" and "he is cleverer than", which suggests that more clever is preferred.



Similarly, TFD insists that the comparative and superlative form of simple is simpler and simplest.
Google seems to concur and produces 331,000 results for "It is simpler than" compared to 110,000 results for "It is more simple than".



The two-syllable adjectives that I am aware of, which have both kinds of comparative and superlative forms are:





  • clevercleverer/more clevercleverest/(the) most clever


  • commoncommoner/more commoncommonest/(the) most common


  • gentlegentler/more gentlegentlest/(the) most gentle


  • humblehumbler/more humble (etc.)


  • hollowhollower/more hollow


  • narrownarrower/more narrow


  • politepoliter/more polite


  • quietquieter/more quiet


  • simplesimpler/more simple


  • stupidstupider/more stupid


  • subtlesubtler/more subtle


Is there any explanation for this? Etymologically speaking, is it a recent trend? It seems to me that the number of two-syllable adjectives that add the suffix -er and -est are increasing.



And finally, is there a trick or rule which I can teach my advanced private students?

With younger learners and beginners I teach the "rule" that I mentioned at the beginning—so much simpler! :)





EDIT Feb 9 2015



I have had to update Google figures at least twice now. I shall never understand its algorithms, and how they reach certain number of results. So I apologize if the links posted above produce different figures next week, it is not my fault!










share|improve this question




















  • 1




    Counting Google hits is a notoriously bad estimate for how common something is; Google Ngrams shows simpler is fifteen times more common than more simple. Putting the whole sentence in doesn't make much difference.
    – Peter Shor
    Jan 11 '14 at 17:15












  • So your estimate of simpler being 1.5 times more common is way off. And Google Ngrams says cleverer is preferable.
    – Peter Shor
    Jan 11 '14 at 17:23






  • 1




    Mari-Lou You're getting Englisher and Englisher every day!
    – bib
    Jan 11 '14 at 17:34






  • 2




    To justify my estimation of "nearly completely worthless", the phrase "simpler than" returns 1.58 million hits, and the phrase "is simpler than" returns 12.6 million hits. But every single hit for the second phrase should also be a hit for the first. If this doesn't show these results aren't very reliable, I don't know what does. However, I think your question is a very good one, and I don't know a good answer.
    – Peter Shor
    Jan 11 '14 at 17:37








  • 1




    Mari-Lou: I think you can add humble to the list.
    – Peter Shor
    Jan 12 '14 at 0:50
















22














I know the rule for making the comparative and superlative form for two-syllable words

ending in y, replace the -y with i and use -er and -est:



hap.pyhappier(the) happiest
ti.dytidier(the) tidiest



And I would say that for two-syllable adjectives which do not end in-y, use more and most:



bor.ingmore boring
wor.riedmore worried
care.fulmore careful
tra.gicmore tragic



However, there are inexplicable exceptions: The Free Dictionary says the comparative and superlative form of clever is cleverer and cleverest. Yet to my ears




He's more clever than I thought




sounds more formal and correct.



Google produces an impressive 48,000 results for "he is more clever than" and 3,980 results for the contracted form, "he's more clever than" compared to only 6,710 results and 19,800 results for "he's cleverer than" and "he is cleverer than", which suggests that more clever is preferred.



Similarly, TFD insists that the comparative and superlative form of simple is simpler and simplest.
Google seems to concur and produces 331,000 results for "It is simpler than" compared to 110,000 results for "It is more simple than".



The two-syllable adjectives that I am aware of, which have both kinds of comparative and superlative forms are:





  • clevercleverer/more clevercleverest/(the) most clever


  • commoncommoner/more commoncommonest/(the) most common


  • gentlegentler/more gentlegentlest/(the) most gentle


  • humblehumbler/more humble (etc.)


  • hollowhollower/more hollow


  • narrownarrower/more narrow


  • politepoliter/more polite


  • quietquieter/more quiet


  • simplesimpler/more simple


  • stupidstupider/more stupid


  • subtlesubtler/more subtle


Is there any explanation for this? Etymologically speaking, is it a recent trend? It seems to me that the number of two-syllable adjectives that add the suffix -er and -est are increasing.



And finally, is there a trick or rule which I can teach my advanced private students?

With younger learners and beginners I teach the "rule" that I mentioned at the beginning—so much simpler! :)





EDIT Feb 9 2015



I have had to update Google figures at least twice now. I shall never understand its algorithms, and how they reach certain number of results. So I apologize if the links posted above produce different figures next week, it is not my fault!










share|improve this question




















  • 1




    Counting Google hits is a notoriously bad estimate for how common something is; Google Ngrams shows simpler is fifteen times more common than more simple. Putting the whole sentence in doesn't make much difference.
    – Peter Shor
    Jan 11 '14 at 17:15












  • So your estimate of simpler being 1.5 times more common is way off. And Google Ngrams says cleverer is preferable.
    – Peter Shor
    Jan 11 '14 at 17:23






  • 1




    Mari-Lou You're getting Englisher and Englisher every day!
    – bib
    Jan 11 '14 at 17:34






  • 2




    To justify my estimation of "nearly completely worthless", the phrase "simpler than" returns 1.58 million hits, and the phrase "is simpler than" returns 12.6 million hits. But every single hit for the second phrase should also be a hit for the first. If this doesn't show these results aren't very reliable, I don't know what does. However, I think your question is a very good one, and I don't know a good answer.
    – Peter Shor
    Jan 11 '14 at 17:37








  • 1




    Mari-Lou: I think you can add humble to the list.
    – Peter Shor
    Jan 12 '14 at 0:50














22












22








22


6





I know the rule for making the comparative and superlative form for two-syllable words

ending in y, replace the -y with i and use -er and -est:



hap.pyhappier(the) happiest
ti.dytidier(the) tidiest



And I would say that for two-syllable adjectives which do not end in-y, use more and most:



bor.ingmore boring
wor.riedmore worried
care.fulmore careful
tra.gicmore tragic



However, there are inexplicable exceptions: The Free Dictionary says the comparative and superlative form of clever is cleverer and cleverest. Yet to my ears




He's more clever than I thought




sounds more formal and correct.



Google produces an impressive 48,000 results for "he is more clever than" and 3,980 results for the contracted form, "he's more clever than" compared to only 6,710 results and 19,800 results for "he's cleverer than" and "he is cleverer than", which suggests that more clever is preferred.



Similarly, TFD insists that the comparative and superlative form of simple is simpler and simplest.
Google seems to concur and produces 331,000 results for "It is simpler than" compared to 110,000 results for "It is more simple than".



The two-syllable adjectives that I am aware of, which have both kinds of comparative and superlative forms are:





  • clevercleverer/more clevercleverest/(the) most clever


  • commoncommoner/more commoncommonest/(the) most common


  • gentlegentler/more gentlegentlest/(the) most gentle


  • humblehumbler/more humble (etc.)


  • hollowhollower/more hollow


  • narrownarrower/more narrow


  • politepoliter/more polite


  • quietquieter/more quiet


  • simplesimpler/more simple


  • stupidstupider/more stupid


  • subtlesubtler/more subtle


Is there any explanation for this? Etymologically speaking, is it a recent trend? It seems to me that the number of two-syllable adjectives that add the suffix -er and -est are increasing.



And finally, is there a trick or rule which I can teach my advanced private students?

With younger learners and beginners I teach the "rule" that I mentioned at the beginning—so much simpler! :)





EDIT Feb 9 2015



I have had to update Google figures at least twice now. I shall never understand its algorithms, and how they reach certain number of results. So I apologize if the links posted above produce different figures next week, it is not my fault!










share|improve this question















I know the rule for making the comparative and superlative form for two-syllable words

ending in y, replace the -y with i and use -er and -est:



hap.pyhappier(the) happiest
ti.dytidier(the) tidiest



And I would say that for two-syllable adjectives which do not end in-y, use more and most:



bor.ingmore boring
wor.riedmore worried
care.fulmore careful
tra.gicmore tragic



However, there are inexplicable exceptions: The Free Dictionary says the comparative and superlative form of clever is cleverer and cleverest. Yet to my ears




He's more clever than I thought




sounds more formal and correct.



Google produces an impressive 48,000 results for "he is more clever than" and 3,980 results for the contracted form, "he's more clever than" compared to only 6,710 results and 19,800 results for "he's cleverer than" and "he is cleverer than", which suggests that more clever is preferred.



Similarly, TFD insists that the comparative and superlative form of simple is simpler and simplest.
Google seems to concur and produces 331,000 results for "It is simpler than" compared to 110,000 results for "It is more simple than".



The two-syllable adjectives that I am aware of, which have both kinds of comparative and superlative forms are:





  • clevercleverer/more clevercleverest/(the) most clever


  • commoncommoner/more commoncommonest/(the) most common


  • gentlegentler/more gentlegentlest/(the) most gentle


  • humblehumbler/more humble (etc.)


  • hollowhollower/more hollow


  • narrownarrower/more narrow


  • politepoliter/more polite


  • quietquieter/more quiet


  • simplesimpler/more simple


  • stupidstupider/more stupid


  • subtlesubtler/more subtle


Is there any explanation for this? Etymologically speaking, is it a recent trend? It seems to me that the number of two-syllable adjectives that add the suffix -er and -est are increasing.



And finally, is there a trick or rule which I can teach my advanced private students?

With younger learners and beginners I teach the "rule" that I mentioned at the beginning—so much simpler! :)





EDIT Feb 9 2015



I have had to update Google figures at least twice now. I shall never understand its algorithms, and how they reach certain number of results. So I apologize if the links posted above produce different figures next week, it is not my fault!







etymology adjectives comparative syllables inflectional-morphology






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Dec 1 '16 at 6:55









sumelic

45.8k8108211




45.8k8108211










asked Jan 11 '14 at 16:49









Mari-Lou A

61.6k55216455




61.6k55216455








  • 1




    Counting Google hits is a notoriously bad estimate for how common something is; Google Ngrams shows simpler is fifteen times more common than more simple. Putting the whole sentence in doesn't make much difference.
    – Peter Shor
    Jan 11 '14 at 17:15












  • So your estimate of simpler being 1.5 times more common is way off. And Google Ngrams says cleverer is preferable.
    – Peter Shor
    Jan 11 '14 at 17:23






  • 1




    Mari-Lou You're getting Englisher and Englisher every day!
    – bib
    Jan 11 '14 at 17:34






  • 2




    To justify my estimation of "nearly completely worthless", the phrase "simpler than" returns 1.58 million hits, and the phrase "is simpler than" returns 12.6 million hits. But every single hit for the second phrase should also be a hit for the first. If this doesn't show these results aren't very reliable, I don't know what does. However, I think your question is a very good one, and I don't know a good answer.
    – Peter Shor
    Jan 11 '14 at 17:37








  • 1




    Mari-Lou: I think you can add humble to the list.
    – Peter Shor
    Jan 12 '14 at 0:50














  • 1




    Counting Google hits is a notoriously bad estimate for how common something is; Google Ngrams shows simpler is fifteen times more common than more simple. Putting the whole sentence in doesn't make much difference.
    – Peter Shor
    Jan 11 '14 at 17:15












  • So your estimate of simpler being 1.5 times more common is way off. And Google Ngrams says cleverer is preferable.
    – Peter Shor
    Jan 11 '14 at 17:23






  • 1




    Mari-Lou You're getting Englisher and Englisher every day!
    – bib
    Jan 11 '14 at 17:34






  • 2




    To justify my estimation of "nearly completely worthless", the phrase "simpler than" returns 1.58 million hits, and the phrase "is simpler than" returns 12.6 million hits. But every single hit for the second phrase should also be a hit for the first. If this doesn't show these results aren't very reliable, I don't know what does. However, I think your question is a very good one, and I don't know a good answer.
    – Peter Shor
    Jan 11 '14 at 17:37








  • 1




    Mari-Lou: I think you can add humble to the list.
    – Peter Shor
    Jan 12 '14 at 0:50








1




1




Counting Google hits is a notoriously bad estimate for how common something is; Google Ngrams shows simpler is fifteen times more common than more simple. Putting the whole sentence in doesn't make much difference.
– Peter Shor
Jan 11 '14 at 17:15






Counting Google hits is a notoriously bad estimate for how common something is; Google Ngrams shows simpler is fifteen times more common than more simple. Putting the whole sentence in doesn't make much difference.
– Peter Shor
Jan 11 '14 at 17:15














So your estimate of simpler being 1.5 times more common is way off. And Google Ngrams says cleverer is preferable.
– Peter Shor
Jan 11 '14 at 17:23




So your estimate of simpler being 1.5 times more common is way off. And Google Ngrams says cleverer is preferable.
– Peter Shor
Jan 11 '14 at 17:23




1




1




Mari-Lou You're getting Englisher and Englisher every day!
– bib
Jan 11 '14 at 17:34




Mari-Lou You're getting Englisher and Englisher every day!
– bib
Jan 11 '14 at 17:34




2




2




To justify my estimation of "nearly completely worthless", the phrase "simpler than" returns 1.58 million hits, and the phrase "is simpler than" returns 12.6 million hits. But every single hit for the second phrase should also be a hit for the first. If this doesn't show these results aren't very reliable, I don't know what does. However, I think your question is a very good one, and I don't know a good answer.
– Peter Shor
Jan 11 '14 at 17:37






To justify my estimation of "nearly completely worthless", the phrase "simpler than" returns 1.58 million hits, and the phrase "is simpler than" returns 12.6 million hits. But every single hit for the second phrase should also be a hit for the first. If this doesn't show these results aren't very reliable, I don't know what does. However, I think your question is a very good one, and I don't know a good answer.
– Peter Shor
Jan 11 '14 at 17:37






1




1




Mari-Lou: I think you can add humble to the list.
– Peter Shor
Jan 12 '14 at 0:50




Mari-Lou: I think you can add humble to the list.
– Peter Shor
Jan 12 '14 at 0:50










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















8














According to Swan in Pratical English Usage (p114) the two-syllable adjectives whose comparative form is most likely to be formed with -er are those that end with an unstressed vowel; e.g. narrow, simple, clever, subtle, etc. from your list above. Swan goes on to state:




With many two-syllable adjectives (e.g. polite, common) -er/-est and
more/most are both possible. With others (including adjectives ending
in -ing, -ed, -ful, and -less), only more/most is possible. In
general, the structure with more/most is becoming more common. To find
out the normal comparative and superlative for a particular
two-syllable adjective, check in a good dictionary.




It is interesting that Swan himself uses more common and not commoner in his explanation above, and this seems the better choice in a formal written context. So if you are looking for guidelines for your advanced students I would recommend:




  • Learn the common two-syllable adjectives ending with an unstressed
    vowel that can be compared with -er.

  • For the rest use more. I suspect that native speakers are much more
    likely (likelier?) to consider an -er usage problematic than a
    more usage. For example, more polite or even more clever will probably sound less ungrammatical than pleasanter or
    tranquil(l)er.


If your students really would like to know word-by-word if the -er comparative is possible, they will need to consult a good dictionary. Swan recommends the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, the MacMillan English Dictionary and the Collins Cobuild English Dictionary.



The Collins, for example, shows pleasanter but more tranquil as the comparative forms.






share|improve this answer





























    4














    The rule that mono- and disyllabic adjectives form their comparatives with -er and larger adjectives do so with more is more or less consistently correct (unless they be participles); however, if you want a more detailed explanation, I have given one below:



    There is no absolute rule, but the general trend is that any word that comes from Latin or French into English will form a comparative with more, whereas adjectives of Germanic origin tend to use -er. Past and present participles also use more to form comparatives.



    Obvious Latin adjectives usually end in -ive or -ous, both of which form their comparatives with more. E.g. he is lecherous and he is more lecherous, but never he is lecherouser; he seems pensive and he seems more pensive, but never he seems pensiver.



    The most notable exception to this is when a Latin comparative or superlative wriggles its way into English; such examples include major 'lit. greater (comparative of magnus 'great') and supreme 'lit. highest (superlative of superus 'high'). These, however, are still not formed regularly by English standards.



    Another exception occasionally occurs when adjectives come through French or Vulgar Latin, such as certain, which has in the past formed its comparative as certainer, but this use is almost completely gone. More persistent comparatives of this category include nobler and gentler, largely because of the ease in reducing gentilis to gentle and so on.



    French adjectives tend to end in -ant or -ent. Again, a man can be defiant or more defiant, but he cannot be defianter. These adjectives are past participles, and so this rule is also in line with the English rule.



    Germanic adjectives, however, almost invariably form their comparatives with -er. Happier, sillier, darker, et cetera are all in this class.



    Participles, whether they be Germanic or Latin, present or past, never use -er: he is more annoying, his beard was itching more, the sheep is more shorn, the passage was read more, and so on.



    Basically, if it sounds Germanic and is not a participle, use -er; if it sounds Latin, use more.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1




      But common, gentle, humble, quiet, simple, and stupid derive from latin, and they sound kinda Italian too (comune, gentile, umile, quiete, semplice, stupido) so why do they belong to the -er/-est list?
      – Mari-Lou A
      Jan 12 '14 at 2:48












    • Common belongs to the same class as certain, but it has retained the -er comparative; it also underwent a changes that made it sound more Germanic (the Latin word is communis). Gentle (gentilis) and humble (humilis) belong to the same class as noble (nobilis). Simple comes from Latin simplus, which is easy to turn into an -er comparative; unfortunately, I can find no better reasoning. For quiet I can also find no better reasoning. Stupid should not form an -er comparative, however, as similar words, such as vapid and placid, tend not to, but sometimes it does.
      – Anonym
      Jan 12 '14 at 3:22








    • 1




      I suspect that the origin of the word is largely a red herring (after all, native speakers intuit whether the -er structure is possible and don't intuitively have any idea about the original of the word). What is happening is that there is some overlap between e.g. the prosodic structure of a word and its origin, and so statistically, there is a chance that words with certain origins will follow a particular rule for comparative formation. But the word's historical origin can't be the reason for it following a particular pattern: the information isn't intuitively available to speakers.
      – Neil Coffey
      Apr 25 '14 at 14:58












    • @NeilCoffey Although most native speakers don't know the etymology, we learn how to use words from our parents, friends and teachers, so patterns and rules get passed on with slight mutations through the generations. Why is the h pronounced in hair but not in heir? Because centuries ago the coming Germanic folk pronounced the h and fewer centuries ago the arriving Normans didn't. Which verbs change tense by changing a vowel? The strong Old English (Germanic) ones: come/came vs arrive/arrived via French. The patterns are passed on through the generations. Word origins definitely play a part.
      – AndrewC
      Jun 23 '14 at 20:07










    • @Mari-LouA I'm from the UK, where commoner is a noun, not a comparative, and "stupider" sounds more stupid than "more stupid", and would be only used ironically. There are exceptions, but I think Anonym has hit on the most likely reason.
      – AndrewC
      Jun 23 '14 at 20:12



















    -3














    The Oxford English Dictionary provides its answer here.



    I personally prefer the rule: For 2 syllables use -er/-est unless that form is not allowed (see OED).






    share|improve this answer

















    • 5




      Oxford Dictionaries Online (ODO) is not the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), which is subscription-only. This is a common error.
      – TimLymington
      Jan 11 '14 at 22:59





















    -6














    Okay so the simplest answer I can give is, the usage of more clever versus cleverer is relative to two things; third person versus first person, and if the term is referencing a person or thing.



    For example: (From a narrative third person) Margie was more clever than Dick.
    (From a narrative first person) I was cleverer than Dick.



    (From a narrative third person) "The engine was most clever" said Margie
    (From a narrative first person) "I say the cleverer engine best all the other inventions".



    Cleverer however has fallen out of use in modern English, except in jibe and glib commentary. Idioms from the Mid-modern English era post-Shakespeare use cleverer quite often.






    share|improve this answer

















    • 4




      This is quite blatantly not true. There is no difference in person whatsoever; he is cleverer and I am more clever are equally valid, regardless of narrative perspective.
      – Janus Bahs Jacquet
      Jan 11 '15 at 10:30










    • Actually, as a fiction writer and screenwriter, and as a linguist, I can tell you there is a huge difference in how we tend to write first person and third person narrative. You see this distinction all of the time by writers like Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Mark Twain. Just because you don't like this fact doesn't make it incorrect.
      – Kristoffer Jay Martin
      Jan 4 '16 at 1:24






    • 3




      Please do feel free to back up your claim with evidence. As it stands, you are making a claim based on nothing at all, and one that goes against at the very least four people's use of the English language. I'm not saying there's no difference in how we write first- and third-person narratives; but as a linguist, I can tell you that comparative formations are not normally one of those differences.
      – Janus Bahs Jacquet
      Jan 4 '16 at 5:38










    protected by tchrist Feb 7 '15 at 13:05



    Thank you for your interest in this question.
    Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



    Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?














    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    8














    According to Swan in Pratical English Usage (p114) the two-syllable adjectives whose comparative form is most likely to be formed with -er are those that end with an unstressed vowel; e.g. narrow, simple, clever, subtle, etc. from your list above. Swan goes on to state:




    With many two-syllable adjectives (e.g. polite, common) -er/-est and
    more/most are both possible. With others (including adjectives ending
    in -ing, -ed, -ful, and -less), only more/most is possible. In
    general, the structure with more/most is becoming more common. To find
    out the normal comparative and superlative for a particular
    two-syllable adjective, check in a good dictionary.




    It is interesting that Swan himself uses more common and not commoner in his explanation above, and this seems the better choice in a formal written context. So if you are looking for guidelines for your advanced students I would recommend:




    • Learn the common two-syllable adjectives ending with an unstressed
      vowel that can be compared with -er.

    • For the rest use more. I suspect that native speakers are much more
      likely (likelier?) to consider an -er usage problematic than a
      more usage. For example, more polite or even more clever will probably sound less ungrammatical than pleasanter or
      tranquil(l)er.


    If your students really would like to know word-by-word if the -er comparative is possible, they will need to consult a good dictionary. Swan recommends the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, the MacMillan English Dictionary and the Collins Cobuild English Dictionary.



    The Collins, for example, shows pleasanter but more tranquil as the comparative forms.






    share|improve this answer


























      8














      According to Swan in Pratical English Usage (p114) the two-syllable adjectives whose comparative form is most likely to be formed with -er are those that end with an unstressed vowel; e.g. narrow, simple, clever, subtle, etc. from your list above. Swan goes on to state:




      With many two-syllable adjectives (e.g. polite, common) -er/-est and
      more/most are both possible. With others (including adjectives ending
      in -ing, -ed, -ful, and -less), only more/most is possible. In
      general, the structure with more/most is becoming more common. To find
      out the normal comparative and superlative for a particular
      two-syllable adjective, check in a good dictionary.




      It is interesting that Swan himself uses more common and not commoner in his explanation above, and this seems the better choice in a formal written context. So if you are looking for guidelines for your advanced students I would recommend:




      • Learn the common two-syllable adjectives ending with an unstressed
        vowel that can be compared with -er.

      • For the rest use more. I suspect that native speakers are much more
        likely (likelier?) to consider an -er usage problematic than a
        more usage. For example, more polite or even more clever will probably sound less ungrammatical than pleasanter or
        tranquil(l)er.


      If your students really would like to know word-by-word if the -er comparative is possible, they will need to consult a good dictionary. Swan recommends the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, the MacMillan English Dictionary and the Collins Cobuild English Dictionary.



      The Collins, for example, shows pleasanter but more tranquil as the comparative forms.






      share|improve this answer
























        8












        8








        8






        According to Swan in Pratical English Usage (p114) the two-syllable adjectives whose comparative form is most likely to be formed with -er are those that end with an unstressed vowel; e.g. narrow, simple, clever, subtle, etc. from your list above. Swan goes on to state:




        With many two-syllable adjectives (e.g. polite, common) -er/-est and
        more/most are both possible. With others (including adjectives ending
        in -ing, -ed, -ful, and -less), only more/most is possible. In
        general, the structure with more/most is becoming more common. To find
        out the normal comparative and superlative for a particular
        two-syllable adjective, check in a good dictionary.




        It is interesting that Swan himself uses more common and not commoner in his explanation above, and this seems the better choice in a formal written context. So if you are looking for guidelines for your advanced students I would recommend:




        • Learn the common two-syllable adjectives ending with an unstressed
          vowel that can be compared with -er.

        • For the rest use more. I suspect that native speakers are much more
          likely (likelier?) to consider an -er usage problematic than a
          more usage. For example, more polite or even more clever will probably sound less ungrammatical than pleasanter or
          tranquil(l)er.


        If your students really would like to know word-by-word if the -er comparative is possible, they will need to consult a good dictionary. Swan recommends the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, the MacMillan English Dictionary and the Collins Cobuild English Dictionary.



        The Collins, for example, shows pleasanter but more tranquil as the comparative forms.






        share|improve this answer












        According to Swan in Pratical English Usage (p114) the two-syllable adjectives whose comparative form is most likely to be formed with -er are those that end with an unstressed vowel; e.g. narrow, simple, clever, subtle, etc. from your list above. Swan goes on to state:




        With many two-syllable adjectives (e.g. polite, common) -er/-est and
        more/most are both possible. With others (including adjectives ending
        in -ing, -ed, -ful, and -less), only more/most is possible. In
        general, the structure with more/most is becoming more common. To find
        out the normal comparative and superlative for a particular
        two-syllable adjective, check in a good dictionary.




        It is interesting that Swan himself uses more common and not commoner in his explanation above, and this seems the better choice in a formal written context. So if you are looking for guidelines for your advanced students I would recommend:




        • Learn the common two-syllable adjectives ending with an unstressed
          vowel that can be compared with -er.

        • For the rest use more. I suspect that native speakers are much more
          likely (likelier?) to consider an -er usage problematic than a
          more usage. For example, more polite or even more clever will probably sound less ungrammatical than pleasanter or
          tranquil(l)er.


        If your students really would like to know word-by-word if the -er comparative is possible, they will need to consult a good dictionary. Swan recommends the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, the MacMillan English Dictionary and the Collins Cobuild English Dictionary.



        The Collins, for example, shows pleasanter but more tranquil as the comparative forms.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Jan 12 '14 at 6:38









        Shoe

        24.9k43684




        24.9k43684

























            4














            The rule that mono- and disyllabic adjectives form their comparatives with -er and larger adjectives do so with more is more or less consistently correct (unless they be participles); however, if you want a more detailed explanation, I have given one below:



            There is no absolute rule, but the general trend is that any word that comes from Latin or French into English will form a comparative with more, whereas adjectives of Germanic origin tend to use -er. Past and present participles also use more to form comparatives.



            Obvious Latin adjectives usually end in -ive or -ous, both of which form their comparatives with more. E.g. he is lecherous and he is more lecherous, but never he is lecherouser; he seems pensive and he seems more pensive, but never he seems pensiver.



            The most notable exception to this is when a Latin comparative or superlative wriggles its way into English; such examples include major 'lit. greater (comparative of magnus 'great') and supreme 'lit. highest (superlative of superus 'high'). These, however, are still not formed regularly by English standards.



            Another exception occasionally occurs when adjectives come through French or Vulgar Latin, such as certain, which has in the past formed its comparative as certainer, but this use is almost completely gone. More persistent comparatives of this category include nobler and gentler, largely because of the ease in reducing gentilis to gentle and so on.



            French adjectives tend to end in -ant or -ent. Again, a man can be defiant or more defiant, but he cannot be defianter. These adjectives are past participles, and so this rule is also in line with the English rule.



            Germanic adjectives, however, almost invariably form their comparatives with -er. Happier, sillier, darker, et cetera are all in this class.



            Participles, whether they be Germanic or Latin, present or past, never use -er: he is more annoying, his beard was itching more, the sheep is more shorn, the passage was read more, and so on.



            Basically, if it sounds Germanic and is not a participle, use -er; if it sounds Latin, use more.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 1




              But common, gentle, humble, quiet, simple, and stupid derive from latin, and they sound kinda Italian too (comune, gentile, umile, quiete, semplice, stupido) so why do they belong to the -er/-est list?
              – Mari-Lou A
              Jan 12 '14 at 2:48












            • Common belongs to the same class as certain, but it has retained the -er comparative; it also underwent a changes that made it sound more Germanic (the Latin word is communis). Gentle (gentilis) and humble (humilis) belong to the same class as noble (nobilis). Simple comes from Latin simplus, which is easy to turn into an -er comparative; unfortunately, I can find no better reasoning. For quiet I can also find no better reasoning. Stupid should not form an -er comparative, however, as similar words, such as vapid and placid, tend not to, but sometimes it does.
              – Anonym
              Jan 12 '14 at 3:22








            • 1




              I suspect that the origin of the word is largely a red herring (after all, native speakers intuit whether the -er structure is possible and don't intuitively have any idea about the original of the word). What is happening is that there is some overlap between e.g. the prosodic structure of a word and its origin, and so statistically, there is a chance that words with certain origins will follow a particular rule for comparative formation. But the word's historical origin can't be the reason for it following a particular pattern: the information isn't intuitively available to speakers.
              – Neil Coffey
              Apr 25 '14 at 14:58












            • @NeilCoffey Although most native speakers don't know the etymology, we learn how to use words from our parents, friends and teachers, so patterns and rules get passed on with slight mutations through the generations. Why is the h pronounced in hair but not in heir? Because centuries ago the coming Germanic folk pronounced the h and fewer centuries ago the arriving Normans didn't. Which verbs change tense by changing a vowel? The strong Old English (Germanic) ones: come/came vs arrive/arrived via French. The patterns are passed on through the generations. Word origins definitely play a part.
              – AndrewC
              Jun 23 '14 at 20:07










            • @Mari-LouA I'm from the UK, where commoner is a noun, not a comparative, and "stupider" sounds more stupid than "more stupid", and would be only used ironically. There are exceptions, but I think Anonym has hit on the most likely reason.
              – AndrewC
              Jun 23 '14 at 20:12
















            4














            The rule that mono- and disyllabic adjectives form their comparatives with -er and larger adjectives do so with more is more or less consistently correct (unless they be participles); however, if you want a more detailed explanation, I have given one below:



            There is no absolute rule, but the general trend is that any word that comes from Latin or French into English will form a comparative with more, whereas adjectives of Germanic origin tend to use -er. Past and present participles also use more to form comparatives.



            Obvious Latin adjectives usually end in -ive or -ous, both of which form their comparatives with more. E.g. he is lecherous and he is more lecherous, but never he is lecherouser; he seems pensive and he seems more pensive, but never he seems pensiver.



            The most notable exception to this is when a Latin comparative or superlative wriggles its way into English; such examples include major 'lit. greater (comparative of magnus 'great') and supreme 'lit. highest (superlative of superus 'high'). These, however, are still not formed regularly by English standards.



            Another exception occasionally occurs when adjectives come through French or Vulgar Latin, such as certain, which has in the past formed its comparative as certainer, but this use is almost completely gone. More persistent comparatives of this category include nobler and gentler, largely because of the ease in reducing gentilis to gentle and so on.



            French adjectives tend to end in -ant or -ent. Again, a man can be defiant or more defiant, but he cannot be defianter. These adjectives are past participles, and so this rule is also in line with the English rule.



            Germanic adjectives, however, almost invariably form their comparatives with -er. Happier, sillier, darker, et cetera are all in this class.



            Participles, whether they be Germanic or Latin, present or past, never use -er: he is more annoying, his beard was itching more, the sheep is more shorn, the passage was read more, and so on.



            Basically, if it sounds Germanic and is not a participle, use -er; if it sounds Latin, use more.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 1




              But common, gentle, humble, quiet, simple, and stupid derive from latin, and they sound kinda Italian too (comune, gentile, umile, quiete, semplice, stupido) so why do they belong to the -er/-est list?
              – Mari-Lou A
              Jan 12 '14 at 2:48












            • Common belongs to the same class as certain, but it has retained the -er comparative; it also underwent a changes that made it sound more Germanic (the Latin word is communis). Gentle (gentilis) and humble (humilis) belong to the same class as noble (nobilis). Simple comes from Latin simplus, which is easy to turn into an -er comparative; unfortunately, I can find no better reasoning. For quiet I can also find no better reasoning. Stupid should not form an -er comparative, however, as similar words, such as vapid and placid, tend not to, but sometimes it does.
              – Anonym
              Jan 12 '14 at 3:22








            • 1




              I suspect that the origin of the word is largely a red herring (after all, native speakers intuit whether the -er structure is possible and don't intuitively have any idea about the original of the word). What is happening is that there is some overlap between e.g. the prosodic structure of a word and its origin, and so statistically, there is a chance that words with certain origins will follow a particular rule for comparative formation. But the word's historical origin can't be the reason for it following a particular pattern: the information isn't intuitively available to speakers.
              – Neil Coffey
              Apr 25 '14 at 14:58












            • @NeilCoffey Although most native speakers don't know the etymology, we learn how to use words from our parents, friends and teachers, so patterns and rules get passed on with slight mutations through the generations. Why is the h pronounced in hair but not in heir? Because centuries ago the coming Germanic folk pronounced the h and fewer centuries ago the arriving Normans didn't. Which verbs change tense by changing a vowel? The strong Old English (Germanic) ones: come/came vs arrive/arrived via French. The patterns are passed on through the generations. Word origins definitely play a part.
              – AndrewC
              Jun 23 '14 at 20:07










            • @Mari-LouA I'm from the UK, where commoner is a noun, not a comparative, and "stupider" sounds more stupid than "more stupid", and would be only used ironically. There are exceptions, but I think Anonym has hit on the most likely reason.
              – AndrewC
              Jun 23 '14 at 20:12














            4












            4








            4






            The rule that mono- and disyllabic adjectives form their comparatives with -er and larger adjectives do so with more is more or less consistently correct (unless they be participles); however, if you want a more detailed explanation, I have given one below:



            There is no absolute rule, but the general trend is that any word that comes from Latin or French into English will form a comparative with more, whereas adjectives of Germanic origin tend to use -er. Past and present participles also use more to form comparatives.



            Obvious Latin adjectives usually end in -ive or -ous, both of which form their comparatives with more. E.g. he is lecherous and he is more lecherous, but never he is lecherouser; he seems pensive and he seems more pensive, but never he seems pensiver.



            The most notable exception to this is when a Latin comparative or superlative wriggles its way into English; such examples include major 'lit. greater (comparative of magnus 'great') and supreme 'lit. highest (superlative of superus 'high'). These, however, are still not formed regularly by English standards.



            Another exception occasionally occurs when adjectives come through French or Vulgar Latin, such as certain, which has in the past formed its comparative as certainer, but this use is almost completely gone. More persistent comparatives of this category include nobler and gentler, largely because of the ease in reducing gentilis to gentle and so on.



            French adjectives tend to end in -ant or -ent. Again, a man can be defiant or more defiant, but he cannot be defianter. These adjectives are past participles, and so this rule is also in line with the English rule.



            Germanic adjectives, however, almost invariably form their comparatives with -er. Happier, sillier, darker, et cetera are all in this class.



            Participles, whether they be Germanic or Latin, present or past, never use -er: he is more annoying, his beard was itching more, the sheep is more shorn, the passage was read more, and so on.



            Basically, if it sounds Germanic and is not a participle, use -er; if it sounds Latin, use more.






            share|improve this answer














            The rule that mono- and disyllabic adjectives form their comparatives with -er and larger adjectives do so with more is more or less consistently correct (unless they be participles); however, if you want a more detailed explanation, I have given one below:



            There is no absolute rule, but the general trend is that any word that comes from Latin or French into English will form a comparative with more, whereas adjectives of Germanic origin tend to use -er. Past and present participles also use more to form comparatives.



            Obvious Latin adjectives usually end in -ive or -ous, both of which form their comparatives with more. E.g. he is lecherous and he is more lecherous, but never he is lecherouser; he seems pensive and he seems more pensive, but never he seems pensiver.



            The most notable exception to this is when a Latin comparative or superlative wriggles its way into English; such examples include major 'lit. greater (comparative of magnus 'great') and supreme 'lit. highest (superlative of superus 'high'). These, however, are still not formed regularly by English standards.



            Another exception occasionally occurs when adjectives come through French or Vulgar Latin, such as certain, which has in the past formed its comparative as certainer, but this use is almost completely gone. More persistent comparatives of this category include nobler and gentler, largely because of the ease in reducing gentilis to gentle and so on.



            French adjectives tend to end in -ant or -ent. Again, a man can be defiant or more defiant, but he cannot be defianter. These adjectives are past participles, and so this rule is also in line with the English rule.



            Germanic adjectives, however, almost invariably form their comparatives with -er. Happier, sillier, darker, et cetera are all in this class.



            Participles, whether they be Germanic or Latin, present or past, never use -er: he is more annoying, his beard was itching more, the sheep is more shorn, the passage was read more, and so on.



            Basically, if it sounds Germanic and is not a participle, use -er; if it sounds Latin, use more.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Jan 12 '14 at 2:33

























            answered Jan 12 '14 at 2:28









            Anonym

            1,483813




            1,483813








            • 1




              But common, gentle, humble, quiet, simple, and stupid derive from latin, and they sound kinda Italian too (comune, gentile, umile, quiete, semplice, stupido) so why do they belong to the -er/-est list?
              – Mari-Lou A
              Jan 12 '14 at 2:48












            • Common belongs to the same class as certain, but it has retained the -er comparative; it also underwent a changes that made it sound more Germanic (the Latin word is communis). Gentle (gentilis) and humble (humilis) belong to the same class as noble (nobilis). Simple comes from Latin simplus, which is easy to turn into an -er comparative; unfortunately, I can find no better reasoning. For quiet I can also find no better reasoning. Stupid should not form an -er comparative, however, as similar words, such as vapid and placid, tend not to, but sometimes it does.
              – Anonym
              Jan 12 '14 at 3:22








            • 1




              I suspect that the origin of the word is largely a red herring (after all, native speakers intuit whether the -er structure is possible and don't intuitively have any idea about the original of the word). What is happening is that there is some overlap between e.g. the prosodic structure of a word and its origin, and so statistically, there is a chance that words with certain origins will follow a particular rule for comparative formation. But the word's historical origin can't be the reason for it following a particular pattern: the information isn't intuitively available to speakers.
              – Neil Coffey
              Apr 25 '14 at 14:58












            • @NeilCoffey Although most native speakers don't know the etymology, we learn how to use words from our parents, friends and teachers, so patterns and rules get passed on with slight mutations through the generations. Why is the h pronounced in hair but not in heir? Because centuries ago the coming Germanic folk pronounced the h and fewer centuries ago the arriving Normans didn't. Which verbs change tense by changing a vowel? The strong Old English (Germanic) ones: come/came vs arrive/arrived via French. The patterns are passed on through the generations. Word origins definitely play a part.
              – AndrewC
              Jun 23 '14 at 20:07










            • @Mari-LouA I'm from the UK, where commoner is a noun, not a comparative, and "stupider" sounds more stupid than "more stupid", and would be only used ironically. There are exceptions, but I think Anonym has hit on the most likely reason.
              – AndrewC
              Jun 23 '14 at 20:12














            • 1




              But common, gentle, humble, quiet, simple, and stupid derive from latin, and they sound kinda Italian too (comune, gentile, umile, quiete, semplice, stupido) so why do they belong to the -er/-est list?
              – Mari-Lou A
              Jan 12 '14 at 2:48












            • Common belongs to the same class as certain, but it has retained the -er comparative; it also underwent a changes that made it sound more Germanic (the Latin word is communis). Gentle (gentilis) and humble (humilis) belong to the same class as noble (nobilis). Simple comes from Latin simplus, which is easy to turn into an -er comparative; unfortunately, I can find no better reasoning. For quiet I can also find no better reasoning. Stupid should not form an -er comparative, however, as similar words, such as vapid and placid, tend not to, but sometimes it does.
              – Anonym
              Jan 12 '14 at 3:22








            • 1




              I suspect that the origin of the word is largely a red herring (after all, native speakers intuit whether the -er structure is possible and don't intuitively have any idea about the original of the word). What is happening is that there is some overlap between e.g. the prosodic structure of a word and its origin, and so statistically, there is a chance that words with certain origins will follow a particular rule for comparative formation. But the word's historical origin can't be the reason for it following a particular pattern: the information isn't intuitively available to speakers.
              – Neil Coffey
              Apr 25 '14 at 14:58












            • @NeilCoffey Although most native speakers don't know the etymology, we learn how to use words from our parents, friends and teachers, so patterns and rules get passed on with slight mutations through the generations. Why is the h pronounced in hair but not in heir? Because centuries ago the coming Germanic folk pronounced the h and fewer centuries ago the arriving Normans didn't. Which verbs change tense by changing a vowel? The strong Old English (Germanic) ones: come/came vs arrive/arrived via French. The patterns are passed on through the generations. Word origins definitely play a part.
              – AndrewC
              Jun 23 '14 at 20:07










            • @Mari-LouA I'm from the UK, where commoner is a noun, not a comparative, and "stupider" sounds more stupid than "more stupid", and would be only used ironically. There are exceptions, but I think Anonym has hit on the most likely reason.
              – AndrewC
              Jun 23 '14 at 20:12








            1




            1




            But common, gentle, humble, quiet, simple, and stupid derive from latin, and they sound kinda Italian too (comune, gentile, umile, quiete, semplice, stupido) so why do they belong to the -er/-est list?
            – Mari-Lou A
            Jan 12 '14 at 2:48






            But common, gentle, humble, quiet, simple, and stupid derive from latin, and they sound kinda Italian too (comune, gentile, umile, quiete, semplice, stupido) so why do they belong to the -er/-est list?
            – Mari-Lou A
            Jan 12 '14 at 2:48














            Common belongs to the same class as certain, but it has retained the -er comparative; it also underwent a changes that made it sound more Germanic (the Latin word is communis). Gentle (gentilis) and humble (humilis) belong to the same class as noble (nobilis). Simple comes from Latin simplus, which is easy to turn into an -er comparative; unfortunately, I can find no better reasoning. For quiet I can also find no better reasoning. Stupid should not form an -er comparative, however, as similar words, such as vapid and placid, tend not to, but sometimes it does.
            – Anonym
            Jan 12 '14 at 3:22






            Common belongs to the same class as certain, but it has retained the -er comparative; it also underwent a changes that made it sound more Germanic (the Latin word is communis). Gentle (gentilis) and humble (humilis) belong to the same class as noble (nobilis). Simple comes from Latin simplus, which is easy to turn into an -er comparative; unfortunately, I can find no better reasoning. For quiet I can also find no better reasoning. Stupid should not form an -er comparative, however, as similar words, such as vapid and placid, tend not to, but sometimes it does.
            – Anonym
            Jan 12 '14 at 3:22






            1




            1




            I suspect that the origin of the word is largely a red herring (after all, native speakers intuit whether the -er structure is possible and don't intuitively have any idea about the original of the word). What is happening is that there is some overlap between e.g. the prosodic structure of a word and its origin, and so statistically, there is a chance that words with certain origins will follow a particular rule for comparative formation. But the word's historical origin can't be the reason for it following a particular pattern: the information isn't intuitively available to speakers.
            – Neil Coffey
            Apr 25 '14 at 14:58






            I suspect that the origin of the word is largely a red herring (after all, native speakers intuit whether the -er structure is possible and don't intuitively have any idea about the original of the word). What is happening is that there is some overlap between e.g. the prosodic structure of a word and its origin, and so statistically, there is a chance that words with certain origins will follow a particular rule for comparative formation. But the word's historical origin can't be the reason for it following a particular pattern: the information isn't intuitively available to speakers.
            – Neil Coffey
            Apr 25 '14 at 14:58














            @NeilCoffey Although most native speakers don't know the etymology, we learn how to use words from our parents, friends and teachers, so patterns and rules get passed on with slight mutations through the generations. Why is the h pronounced in hair but not in heir? Because centuries ago the coming Germanic folk pronounced the h and fewer centuries ago the arriving Normans didn't. Which verbs change tense by changing a vowel? The strong Old English (Germanic) ones: come/came vs arrive/arrived via French. The patterns are passed on through the generations. Word origins definitely play a part.
            – AndrewC
            Jun 23 '14 at 20:07




            @NeilCoffey Although most native speakers don't know the etymology, we learn how to use words from our parents, friends and teachers, so patterns and rules get passed on with slight mutations through the generations. Why is the h pronounced in hair but not in heir? Because centuries ago the coming Germanic folk pronounced the h and fewer centuries ago the arriving Normans didn't. Which verbs change tense by changing a vowel? The strong Old English (Germanic) ones: come/came vs arrive/arrived via French. The patterns are passed on through the generations. Word origins definitely play a part.
            – AndrewC
            Jun 23 '14 at 20:07












            @Mari-LouA I'm from the UK, where commoner is a noun, not a comparative, and "stupider" sounds more stupid than "more stupid", and would be only used ironically. There are exceptions, but I think Anonym has hit on the most likely reason.
            – AndrewC
            Jun 23 '14 at 20:12




            @Mari-LouA I'm from the UK, where commoner is a noun, not a comparative, and "stupider" sounds more stupid than "more stupid", and would be only used ironically. There are exceptions, but I think Anonym has hit on the most likely reason.
            – AndrewC
            Jun 23 '14 at 20:12











            -3














            The Oxford English Dictionary provides its answer here.



            I personally prefer the rule: For 2 syllables use -er/-est unless that form is not allowed (see OED).






            share|improve this answer

















            • 5




              Oxford Dictionaries Online (ODO) is not the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), which is subscription-only. This is a common error.
              – TimLymington
              Jan 11 '14 at 22:59


















            -3














            The Oxford English Dictionary provides its answer here.



            I personally prefer the rule: For 2 syllables use -er/-est unless that form is not allowed (see OED).






            share|improve this answer

















            • 5




              Oxford Dictionaries Online (ODO) is not the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), which is subscription-only. This is a common error.
              – TimLymington
              Jan 11 '14 at 22:59
















            -3












            -3








            -3






            The Oxford English Dictionary provides its answer here.



            I personally prefer the rule: For 2 syllables use -er/-est unless that form is not allowed (see OED).






            share|improve this answer












            The Oxford English Dictionary provides its answer here.



            I personally prefer the rule: For 2 syllables use -er/-est unless that form is not allowed (see OED).







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Jan 11 '14 at 21:50









            Werner Schulz

            31




            31








            • 5




              Oxford Dictionaries Online (ODO) is not the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), which is subscription-only. This is a common error.
              – TimLymington
              Jan 11 '14 at 22:59
















            • 5




              Oxford Dictionaries Online (ODO) is not the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), which is subscription-only. This is a common error.
              – TimLymington
              Jan 11 '14 at 22:59










            5




            5




            Oxford Dictionaries Online (ODO) is not the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), which is subscription-only. This is a common error.
            – TimLymington
            Jan 11 '14 at 22:59






            Oxford Dictionaries Online (ODO) is not the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), which is subscription-only. This is a common error.
            – TimLymington
            Jan 11 '14 at 22:59













            -6














            Okay so the simplest answer I can give is, the usage of more clever versus cleverer is relative to two things; third person versus first person, and if the term is referencing a person or thing.



            For example: (From a narrative third person) Margie was more clever than Dick.
            (From a narrative first person) I was cleverer than Dick.



            (From a narrative third person) "The engine was most clever" said Margie
            (From a narrative first person) "I say the cleverer engine best all the other inventions".



            Cleverer however has fallen out of use in modern English, except in jibe and glib commentary. Idioms from the Mid-modern English era post-Shakespeare use cleverer quite often.






            share|improve this answer

















            • 4




              This is quite blatantly not true. There is no difference in person whatsoever; he is cleverer and I am more clever are equally valid, regardless of narrative perspective.
              – Janus Bahs Jacquet
              Jan 11 '15 at 10:30










            • Actually, as a fiction writer and screenwriter, and as a linguist, I can tell you there is a huge difference in how we tend to write first person and third person narrative. You see this distinction all of the time by writers like Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Mark Twain. Just because you don't like this fact doesn't make it incorrect.
              – Kristoffer Jay Martin
              Jan 4 '16 at 1:24






            • 3




              Please do feel free to back up your claim with evidence. As it stands, you are making a claim based on nothing at all, and one that goes against at the very least four people's use of the English language. I'm not saying there's no difference in how we write first- and third-person narratives; but as a linguist, I can tell you that comparative formations are not normally one of those differences.
              – Janus Bahs Jacquet
              Jan 4 '16 at 5:38
















            -6














            Okay so the simplest answer I can give is, the usage of more clever versus cleverer is relative to two things; third person versus first person, and if the term is referencing a person or thing.



            For example: (From a narrative third person) Margie was more clever than Dick.
            (From a narrative first person) I was cleverer than Dick.



            (From a narrative third person) "The engine was most clever" said Margie
            (From a narrative first person) "I say the cleverer engine best all the other inventions".



            Cleverer however has fallen out of use in modern English, except in jibe and glib commentary. Idioms from the Mid-modern English era post-Shakespeare use cleverer quite often.






            share|improve this answer

















            • 4




              This is quite blatantly not true. There is no difference in person whatsoever; he is cleverer and I am more clever are equally valid, regardless of narrative perspective.
              – Janus Bahs Jacquet
              Jan 11 '15 at 10:30










            • Actually, as a fiction writer and screenwriter, and as a linguist, I can tell you there is a huge difference in how we tend to write first person and third person narrative. You see this distinction all of the time by writers like Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Mark Twain. Just because you don't like this fact doesn't make it incorrect.
              – Kristoffer Jay Martin
              Jan 4 '16 at 1:24






            • 3




              Please do feel free to back up your claim with evidence. As it stands, you are making a claim based on nothing at all, and one that goes against at the very least four people's use of the English language. I'm not saying there's no difference in how we write first- and third-person narratives; but as a linguist, I can tell you that comparative formations are not normally one of those differences.
              – Janus Bahs Jacquet
              Jan 4 '16 at 5:38














            -6












            -6








            -6






            Okay so the simplest answer I can give is, the usage of more clever versus cleverer is relative to two things; third person versus first person, and if the term is referencing a person or thing.



            For example: (From a narrative third person) Margie was more clever than Dick.
            (From a narrative first person) I was cleverer than Dick.



            (From a narrative third person) "The engine was most clever" said Margie
            (From a narrative first person) "I say the cleverer engine best all the other inventions".



            Cleverer however has fallen out of use in modern English, except in jibe and glib commentary. Idioms from the Mid-modern English era post-Shakespeare use cleverer quite often.






            share|improve this answer












            Okay so the simplest answer I can give is, the usage of more clever versus cleverer is relative to two things; third person versus first person, and if the term is referencing a person or thing.



            For example: (From a narrative third person) Margie was more clever than Dick.
            (From a narrative first person) I was cleverer than Dick.



            (From a narrative third person) "The engine was most clever" said Margie
            (From a narrative first person) "I say the cleverer engine best all the other inventions".



            Cleverer however has fallen out of use in modern English, except in jibe and glib commentary. Idioms from the Mid-modern English era post-Shakespeare use cleverer quite often.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Jan 11 '15 at 9:22









            Kristoffer Jay Martin

            1




            1








            • 4




              This is quite blatantly not true. There is no difference in person whatsoever; he is cleverer and I am more clever are equally valid, regardless of narrative perspective.
              – Janus Bahs Jacquet
              Jan 11 '15 at 10:30










            • Actually, as a fiction writer and screenwriter, and as a linguist, I can tell you there is a huge difference in how we tend to write first person and third person narrative. You see this distinction all of the time by writers like Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Mark Twain. Just because you don't like this fact doesn't make it incorrect.
              – Kristoffer Jay Martin
              Jan 4 '16 at 1:24






            • 3




              Please do feel free to back up your claim with evidence. As it stands, you are making a claim based on nothing at all, and one that goes against at the very least four people's use of the English language. I'm not saying there's no difference in how we write first- and third-person narratives; but as a linguist, I can tell you that comparative formations are not normally one of those differences.
              – Janus Bahs Jacquet
              Jan 4 '16 at 5:38














            • 4




              This is quite blatantly not true. There is no difference in person whatsoever; he is cleverer and I am more clever are equally valid, regardless of narrative perspective.
              – Janus Bahs Jacquet
              Jan 11 '15 at 10:30










            • Actually, as a fiction writer and screenwriter, and as a linguist, I can tell you there is a huge difference in how we tend to write first person and third person narrative. You see this distinction all of the time by writers like Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Mark Twain. Just because you don't like this fact doesn't make it incorrect.
              – Kristoffer Jay Martin
              Jan 4 '16 at 1:24






            • 3




              Please do feel free to back up your claim with evidence. As it stands, you are making a claim based on nothing at all, and one that goes against at the very least four people's use of the English language. I'm not saying there's no difference in how we write first- and third-person narratives; but as a linguist, I can tell you that comparative formations are not normally one of those differences.
              – Janus Bahs Jacquet
              Jan 4 '16 at 5:38








            4




            4




            This is quite blatantly not true. There is no difference in person whatsoever; he is cleverer and I am more clever are equally valid, regardless of narrative perspective.
            – Janus Bahs Jacquet
            Jan 11 '15 at 10:30




            This is quite blatantly not true. There is no difference in person whatsoever; he is cleverer and I am more clever are equally valid, regardless of narrative perspective.
            – Janus Bahs Jacquet
            Jan 11 '15 at 10:30












            Actually, as a fiction writer and screenwriter, and as a linguist, I can tell you there is a huge difference in how we tend to write first person and third person narrative. You see this distinction all of the time by writers like Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Mark Twain. Just because you don't like this fact doesn't make it incorrect.
            – Kristoffer Jay Martin
            Jan 4 '16 at 1:24




            Actually, as a fiction writer and screenwriter, and as a linguist, I can tell you there is a huge difference in how we tend to write first person and third person narrative. You see this distinction all of the time by writers like Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Mark Twain. Just because you don't like this fact doesn't make it incorrect.
            – Kristoffer Jay Martin
            Jan 4 '16 at 1:24




            3




            3




            Please do feel free to back up your claim with evidence. As it stands, you are making a claim based on nothing at all, and one that goes against at the very least four people's use of the English language. I'm not saying there's no difference in how we write first- and third-person narratives; but as a linguist, I can tell you that comparative formations are not normally one of those differences.
            – Janus Bahs Jacquet
            Jan 4 '16 at 5:38




            Please do feel free to back up your claim with evidence. As it stands, you are making a claim based on nothing at all, and one that goes against at the very least four people's use of the English language. I'm not saying there's no difference in how we write first- and third-person narratives; but as a linguist, I can tell you that comparative formations are not normally one of those differences.
            – Janus Bahs Jacquet
            Jan 4 '16 at 5:38





            protected by tchrist Feb 7 '15 at 13:05



            Thank you for your interest in this question.
            Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



            Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?



            Popular posts from this blog

            Morgemoulin

            Scott Moir

            Souastre