page 12 note 1 The semantic source of our modern accurate systems of measurement lies in the comparison of equality rather than in that of inequality.

page 12 note 2 It is more concrete to say that the elephant Jumbo was as high as the second storey of a house than to say that he was twelve |feet high. Few persons know what the quantities forty feet, eight hundred pounds, eighteen hours, really mean. Those who do will be found to transfer the attention to some object or series of events previously measured; they quickly shift their minds and refer the object under examination to other objects with which they have become familiar. No measurement is abstract fundamentally, although at times it may seem relatively less concrete. The mercury in the thermometer, the stick marked off in feet, the hands on the face of a clock — such objects are the ultimate reference in concrete comparison, wherein many persons have the impression of abstract measurement, or abstract standard.

page 13 note 1 For the sake of completeness we ought to call to mind another way of expressing inequality at this point : namely, the negative of equality, as, He is not as tall as John, or, They were never as skilful as they now are. This is in effect a comparison of inequality, but fundamentally, and certainly syntactically, it belongs to the comparison of equality.

Since the negative of equality is ipso facto a statement of inequality, it probably served as the semantic ' bridge ' to carry over expressions originally used for equality into the construction of inequality (that is, ' blending '). Compare Latin quant, German als, English dialectal as, etc. Similarly, this negative of equality played a part in the syncretism of cases; see below Chapter I, § 1.

page 14 note 1 This prepositional construction is probably not native to the Germanic languages.

page 14 note 2 The Comparison of Inequality : cf. Introduction and Chapter 1.

page 14 note 3 For an exhaustive classified list of the IE comparative particles, cf. Ziemer 145 ff., or my Comparison of Inequality 30-46.

page 15 note 1 Cf. The Comparison of Inequality 25-29.

page 16 note 1 Cf. ibid. 2 ff., 15 ff., and Chapters II and III.

page 17 note 1 Schwab and Neville show that in Greek and in Latin respectively there were times when certain phrases were felt to belong exclusively to the case-construction (e. g., melius solito). Draeger 565, § 246, in discussing the ablative says, ‘Notwendig ist er nur bei vorangehenden Relativ, welches nie mit quam verbunden wird. ‘ But, of course, these are stylistic and temporary distinctions not dictated by grammatical requirements.

page 17 note 2 The Comparison of Inequality 1, 17, 26, 30-34, and Appendix.

page 19 note 1 Attempts have been made at different times to distinguish the function of the particle from that of the case-construction, but there has been no previous analysis of the relative strength of either in its overlapping function in any language. The only special investigations on the subject are : Neville (Latin), Dräger (Latin), Schwab (Greek), Wölfflin (Latin and Romance), and Ziemer (IE languages). For complete titles, see the Bibliography.

page 19 note 2 It has not been sufficiently emphasized in the past, and often not recognized, that in no IE language has the case-construction stood as the sole means of expressing any phase of comparison. The particle has always ‘ overlapped’ the case as far back as the records go, and the particle has always tended to supersede the case as the languages developed.