The majorative and minorative comparatives are each other’s mirror image. Consider a majorative example like (1) below:

Here two participants (hie ‘he’ and iek ‘I’) are compared to each other with respect to the degree of the adjective. The adjective has the majorative form, and this entails that the majorative participant is expressed in the adjective’s argument position, here the subject position. The minorative participant is expressed in an adverbial phrase headed by the complementiser as ‘than’. The adverbial phrase is optional, and in case it is absent, the minorative participant must be inferred from the discourse. The minorative participant sets the relative degree limit.

We can express the meaning of (1) above in the form of a minorative as well, as in (2):

In that case, the majorative and minorative arguments switch position, as is clear from a comparison of (1) and (2). Now the minorative argument occupies the canonical argument position and the majorative argument is realised in the adverbial phrase. The minorative comparative is rare in Saterland Frisian.

The form of the minorative comparative degree can only be expressed periphrastically, that is, with the addition of the word minner ‘less’, and not morphologically by means of the suffix -er, as in the case of the majorative. The standard for comparison, the degree limit, appears in an adverbial phrase introduced by the complementiser as ‘than’, as in the examples below:

The participant expressed in adverbial phrase sets the degree limit for the comparison. If the participant in the argument position exceeds the degree limit, the majorative form of the adjective is used. If the participant in the argument position falls below the degree limit, then the minorative form of the adjective is used. The degree limit is perhaps a better term than comparative complement, since the latter term is ambiguous. A further example is given below:

Here the degree limit is implicit. The minorative is more usually expressed by the negation of the word so ‘so’. An example is given below:

The word so ‘so’ may participate both in equative and high degree shades of meaning. Its negation entails a lower degree than the degree limit expressed in the adverbial phrase

A comparative may involve participants which are quite abstract. In the following example, two properties are compared:

The comparative moor ‘more’ here sets up a quantitative scale on which the degree of love is measured which the speaker has for two competing properties. The comparative moor ‘more’ is an adverb here modifying the verb.

In the following example, moor ‘more’ functions as a direct object to the verb in the main clause, and causes a direct object gap to occur in the adverbial clause:

The embedded adverbial clause lacks an overt direct object, since its object is co-interpreted with the direct object in the main clause. The direct object inside the adverbial clause, though absent, has a clear quantitative meaning. The sentence as a whole compares the amount of questions of the main clause to the amount of answers of the embedded clause.

The sentence above also illustrates that there are two complementisers present. The first complementiser is the comparative complementiser. The second one is the default subordinating conjunction. Note that the presence of the first complementiser doesn’t cause the absence of the second complementiser, as is the case in the German equivalent of the sentence above:

Nevertheless, such examples of a redundant complementiser are rare. Saterland Frisian normally features the German pattern with one complementiser.